Shaking Up the Status Quo: Challenging Intolerance of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community at a Private Roman Catholic University.

Prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual students, faculty, and staff on college campuses is an important issue that demands attention. Intolerance for the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) community is often intensified by a lack of knowledge and understanding between heterosexuals and the LGB community, a problem that could be solved by successful programming that includes both communities. Research indicates that there are some programs at public universities that seem to be effective in supporting the LGB community, but very few programs exist on religiously affiliated college campuses that address this concern. This qualitative study examines the steps taken by one Roman Catholic university to address this issue. Twenty participants of the "Rainbow Educator" program were asked a series of open-ended questions designed to explore their experiences in the program and to elicit information about any transformative effects the program had on them or the campus community. Three major themes emerged from the data: first, participants reported an increased awareness of social identity (their own and others), second, participants demonstrated an improved confidence to serve as allies to the LGB community, and finally participants described the overall positive impact the program had on the campus community. Problem Scrawled in the men's room of the Law School library was the following: "A fag with AIDS killed my friend." A freshman received death threats on her answering machine; caller said he knew where she lived on campus and would kill her for being a "filthy dyke." A student returned to his dorm room to discover "God Hates Fags" written in indelible marker on his door. Inside the room was trashed, with clothes, shoes, books, and papers torn and strewn all over the floor. When a freshman "came out" (announced his same-sex orientation), his roommate was so upset that the gay student had to move to a single room on campus. He was harassed to the point that campus security accompanied him to class, the dining hall, and his dorm (as reported to Public Safety and the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual student group on campus). Although they occurred on one campus in southern California, the incidents described above, are not unique to this private catholic university. The scarcity of research in this area, however, makes it difficult to know just how unique this situation is in general, and it is even more difficult to ascertain the level of intolerance at religiously affiliated universities (RAI's). As Levine and Love (2000) note, the limited research available on RAI's suggests that factors such as: the invisibility of the issue of sexual orientation, the lack of a visible community of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people, the ways that institutions traditionally approach issues of sexuality, an institutional culture of avoidance, and finally, the negative messages coming from the sponsoring religious organization, may all contribute to intolerance toward the LGB community. In addition, prejudice and discrimination against LGB students, faculty, and staff is often intensified by a lack of knowledge and understanding between heterosexuals and the LGB community. While there are some programs at public universities that seem to be effective in supporting LGB students, research suggests few programs even exist on religiously affiliated college campuses that address this need (Evans & D'Augelli, 1996; Levine & Love, 2000; Lipkin, 1999; Love, 1998). One possible explanation for the small number of programs at private and public institutions designed to improve relations between the heterosexual and LGB communities may be that student affairs practitioners report lower levels of skill in working with the LGB community as compared to their skill in working with other diverse populations (Croteau & Talbot, 2000). While troubling, it appears (according to Croteau & Talbot) that self-reports from student affairs practitioners indicate that their limited skill is at least greater than that of graduate faculty and students. …