Why is it important for allies to “come out” on campus? Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students rarely see themselves reflected in the curriculum (D’Augelli, 1991), they face harassment and homophobia from every level of the institution of higher education (D’Augelli, 1992), and they recognize if they are open about their sexual orientation they will probably be victimized (Abbott & Lidell, 1996). I will share my research on the campus climate for LGBT students, faculty, and staff, followed by research on ally identity development. I conclude with recommendations on how heterosexual administrators can “come out” and be effective allies for their LGBT colleagues and students.

“For no light matter is at stake; the question concerns the very manner in which human life is to be lived.” (Plato, Republic, Book I, 352-D)

You are an Assistant Director of Admissions at Muhlenberg College, a small, liberal arts college in Allentown, Pennsylvania. You have been working here for four years and like your job very much. You also like and respect your boss, who has been a wonderful mentor these past four years.

Every year the staff selects new undergraduate student tour guides for the college. It is considered quite an honor to be a tour guide at this college and therefore it is a highly competitive process. Only one quarter of the students that interview will become tour guides. Each prospective tour guide has two interviews, each with an admissions professional. After everyone has been interviewed, the entire staff meets and chooses the students who have received the highest rating on a scale from 1-10. A “10” is the highest rating a student can receive.

A student named Ian receives “10’s” from each staff member with whom he interviews. This is not a common occurrence. When a student receives this kind of rating, he is guaranteed a position; but not in Ian’s case. The director is familiar with Ian, and likes him yet is not comfortable with Ian representing the institution as a tour guide because he appears to be gay. The director thinks this will “turn off” prospective families and students. The staff, yourself included, argues vehemently but your boss does not change his mind. He claims he is the only one thinking of the institution. Ian is rejected as a tour guide.

You do not know Ian but are very uncomfortable with the director’s decision. He is discriminating against this young man because of his sexual orientation, which goes against the institution’s non-discrimination policy. You like and admire your boss and do not want to jeopardize your relationship by reporting him. What should you do? Should you let Ian know he has been discriminated against even though the meeting is supposed to be confidential? Should you “blow the whistle” and report your boss to the Affirmative Action Office? Or should you abide by your boss’ decision and do nothing?

This is a true story of an event that took place in 1992. I worked for five years at Muhlenberg College. If you asked me then if I considered myself an ally to the gay and lesbian community, I would have said, “Yes, absolutely!” However, reflecting back on my time there, I can see that I was not. This incident with the tour guide is proof that I was not supportive or vocal, and this haunts me. After much debate, the director, with opposition from his entire staff, chose to reject the student solely because he seemed gay. My boss stated that he was the only one thinking of the institution. I was furious and I thought about reporting him to affirmative action or to his boss, but in the end I did nothing. I did not want to “rock the boat.” If I had this to do over again, I would act very differently.

The Higher Education and Student Affairs (HESA) program at The University of Vermont (UVM) has helped me find my voice. Before this program, I was not active and outspoken about issues pertaining to gay and lesbian students, faculty and staff.

There are many students in the HESA program who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. In class, I would hear their stories--one whose father wanted him to be a star athlete, yet he hated athletics. Another whose family was very supportive of his sexual identity. Another who thought that the ally cards should not be handed out to just anyone. These and other stories, combined with assigned readings on gay and lesbian issues in higher education, pushed me along.

In 1998, I attended a workshop on ally identity development at the National Association for Women in Education’s national conference that advanced me even further along in my education. What I found so startling and sobering was that the research presented in this workshop reported that in the entire region of Albany, New York, the researchers could only identify nine allies. Nine! The researchers went to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups all over the city requesting names of allies for their research and this was the result. I realized during this workshop that I had not “come out” as an ally. What LGBT group would name me as an ally? Merely being tolerant of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and classmates was not offering them much in the way of support. I knew that I wanted to be supportive of LGBT people and make the climate better, but they did not know that--how would they?

I returned from the conference determined to make a difference. I began by researching ally identity development and as my colleagues recognized my interest, I began to learn of other ways to be more involved. I joined the search committee at UVM for the new LGBTQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Ally) Coordinator; I attended functions sponsored by Free to Be-GLBTA and A Room of our Own (UVM LGBT student organizations); and I became active in the Burlington community working with the Task Force for Same Sex Marriage.

I have seen how professionally, one person can make a difference as my work at the UVM Women’s Center demonstrates. My first year at the Women’s Center included new LGBT programming--three films in the film series, a workshop at the Student Activist Conference, a program at “Coming Out Week,” and a program at “Building Our Community” (a UVM conference focusing on diversity) co-sponsored with Free to Be-GLBTA. Also being planned are a lesbian/bisexual discussion group and a lesbian/bisexual women’s coffeehouse. The Women’s Center also added magazines aimed at lesbian women to their library.

Why is it important for allies to “come out” on campus? I’d like to share with you some of my research from the last two years on the campus climate for LGBT individuals followed by research on ally identity development. I will conclude with my recommendations on how heterosexual administrators can “come out” and be effective allies for their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender colleagues and students.

“It wasn’t like when I was a kid, when I believed I was the only lesbian on earth. Now we’ve had Stonewall and parades and a growing body of literature and film festivals and gay games…”
“It’s exactly the same,” a couple of kids asserted. “They don’t televise the gay parade in Cincinnati, you know. And we could never get those books and those records.”
But the lanky guy in a leather jacket was shaking his head. “It’s worse,” he said.
“Worse?”
“Sure. Now they know we’re here.”(Raissiguier, 1997, p.36)

“A survey of thousands of America’s highest achieving high school students shows that nearly one half admit prejudice against gays and lesbians, an increase of 19 percentage points since last year.”
(San Francisco Examiner, November 12, 1998)

Homophobia and heterosexism are alive and well in today’s society, and college campuses are not immune to them. Homophobia is “the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals…the revulsion toward homosexuals and often the desire to inflict punishment as retribution” (Sears & Williams, 1997, p. 15). Heterosexism is “a belief in the superiority of heterosexuals or heterosexuality evidenced in the exclusion, by omission or design, of non-heterosexual persons in policies, procedures, events or activities” (p. 16). The incidence of hate crimes against gays and lesbians is higher than for any other population at The University of Vermont (UVM Bias Related Incidents Log, 1998). What are colleges and universities to do to combat homophobia and heterosexism and make campuses safer for the LGBT population?

There are few college campuses in this country that are LGBT nirvanas (Evans, D’Augelli, 1996). Research shows that college campuses are hostile environments for the LGBT population (D’Augelli, 1992; Herek, 1993). In a study of college freshman, D’Augelli and Rose (1990) reported that 30 percent of those sampled preferred a college environment without any homosexuals. Male college students report higher levels of negative attitudes and behaviors, lower comfort levels, and less willingness to believe that harassment may be based on perceived sexuality (D’Augelli & Rose, 1990). Harassment is prevalent--lesbians and gay men are victimized as much as four times more often than the general student population (Comstock, 1991). “Most gay faculty members and administrators have not come out…From a gay vantage point, something is still wrong in the academy” (D’Emilio, 1990, p. 17).

Negative attitudes toward LGBT students often translate into hostile environments (Abbott & Liddell, 1996). D’Augelli’s (1989) student survey of experiences of discrimination on a university campus found that 75 percent of the gays and lesbians surveyed had experienced verbal harassment, 26 percent had been threatened with violence, and 17 percent had sustained property damage. At three different institutions, between 85-94 percent of gay, lesbian and bisexual students said they anticipated future victimization (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, 1991).

The campus environment plays a powerful role in the lives of LGBT students. Some universities have created task forces to determine what the campus climate is like for their LGBT students, faculty and staff. At Duke University, a task force determined “lesbian, gay and bisexual students need a place where they can find support, services, and information in an affirming environment” (Duke University Task Force Report, 1998). Even institutions that report positive attitudes toward sexual minorities are not free from discrimination and harassment. For example, more than 90 percent of students at a small liberal arts college reported they would not mind living or interacting with a gay, lesbian or bisexual person, and 90 percent of the students disagreed with the statement, “I have a negative response to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.” Yet, at this college, 40 percent of the gay, lesbian and bisexual students participating in the survey had been verbally assaulted and four percent had been physically assaulted (Norris, 1992).

“Campus climate is especially important for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students due to the crucial formative identity processes of these years, processes that have been delayed by several years” (Evans & D’Augelli, 1996, p. 213). For LGBT students, attending college is a major life transition (Evans & D’Augelli). Few students have “come out” prior to college (D’Augelli, 1991). Typically, this process of identifying oneself as gay, lesbian or bisexual occurs in college. Developing this new gay, lesbian or bisexual identity is a major challenge in addition to the “normal” transition to college that all students experience. In addition to “the developmental tasks faced by college students such as career decision making, the development of satisfying interpersonal relationships and the establishment of a personal value system” (Evans & D’Augelli, p. 201), a LGBT student also struggles with being “different,” deciding whether to come out to family and friends, and facing harassment, discrimination and, in some cases, violence (Abbott & Lidell, 1996; Cass, 1979).

LGBT persons go through several stages in the process of relinquishing their heterosexual identity and recognizing their homosexuality (Levine & Evans, 1991). The second stage, identifying and self-labeling as gay, lesbian or bisexual, often occurs in college when students are away from families, high school friends, and home communities (Evans & D’Augelli, 1996). The success or failure of these early efforts at self-labeling determine whether the individual can move on to the next stage and disclose his or her sexual identity to others. If the campus does not feel safe or provide visible support for LGBT students, these students will not develop or move on to the next stage in their development process. Self-labeling and self-disclosure are related to emotional well-being for these students (Evans & D’Augelli, 1996). Therefore colleges and universities must provide a safe community and support for students who are coming out if they are truly committed to the success of these students.

If our campuses are to be supportive and inclusive of LGBT students, there is much work to be done. LGBT students rarely see themselves reflected in the curriculum (D’Augelli, 1991), they face harassment and homophobia from every level of the institution (D’Augelli, 1992), and they recognize that if they are open about their sexual orientation they will probably be victimized.

Student affairs professionals may not understand what constitutes a just and supportive environment for GLB students. Some professionals may ignore GLB students, believing that as long as they do no harm to GLB students, they are meeting ethical requirements. However, by taking such a stance, they are not meeting the ethical standard to promote justice. (Marszaluk & Goree, 1995)

What does it mean to promote justice? Promoting justice ensures “fundamental fairness for all individuals within the academic community,” including “demonstrating an appreciation for and opposing intolerance and bigotry concerning these differences” (Marszaluk & Goree, 1995, p. 85). Allies must ensure that the campus be open and appreciative of students and not allow acts of bigotry and intolerance to go unnoticed by the rest of the college community. Ideally, this would happen campus-wide with the help of allies in all departments. However, the fact remains that many people working on college campuses today are uncomfortable with homosexuality and would prefer that it not be discussed nor become more visible. Higher education administrators and faculty must “come out” as allies and understand and affirm their professional ethical obligations as they relate to the LGBT population on their respective campuses.

“With a wide ranging, community-based effort, change can occur on campuses” (Malaney, Williams and Geller; 1997, p. 374). In order to graduate students who have coherent values and ethical standards, we must provide them with some appreciation for their LGBT peers. “The college years are a time during which many students reevaluate the values and beliefs they have learned from their parents, peer group and community” (Evans and D’Augelli, 1996, p. 207). This is an important opportunity for colleges and universities to model inclusiveness and demonstrate a true commitment to promote social justice in their community.

Before we can discuss the identity development of an ally, it is important to define this term. According to the Webster’s Dictionary, an ally is “one that is associated with another as a helper” (p. 73). I use the definition from Beyond Tolerance: Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on Campus. Washington and Evans (1991) define an ally as, “A person who is a member of the ‘dominant’ or ‘majority’ group who works to end oppression in his or her personal and professional life through support of, and as an advocate with and for, the oppressed population” (p. 195). This definition of an ally goes beyond being tolerant or even accepting LGBT individuals and the community; it includes advocating for this population. According to Washington and Evans, “only heterosexual individuals can serve as allies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people” (p. 195). Many in the LGBT community feel that there will not be any significant change politically and personally unless allies join their fight for equal rights and respect (Washington and Evans, 1991). How does an ally advocate for the LGBT community on a college campus? Washington and Evans explain:

Allies are spokespersons for addressing gay issues proactively in program and policy development. Confronting behaviors such as heterosexist joke telling; exclusion of gay, lesbian, and bisexuals either intentionally or by using language that assumes heterosexuality; discriminatory hiring practices; or evaluation of staff based on factors related to their sexual orientation is also part of the role of the advocate. (p. 199)

Being an ally does not mean sitting back and accepting gay or lesbian colleagues, but actually working to make the campus environment a more safe, friendly, and supportive place.

How does one become an ally? There is very little written about the developmental journey of an ally to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Therefore, I include some theories that are based on racial, rather than sexual, differences. These models are helpful in understanding ally identity development, as well as providing a framework for understanding how these new LGBT models are developing. Included are: Gordon Allport’s Contact Theory, Janet Helms’ model of white racial consciousness, Jamie Washington’s and Nancy Evans’ four basic levels of being an ally, Gregory Herek’s work on heterosexual attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, and Jelane Kennedy’s and Katherine Voegtle’s model of ally identity development.

Allport’s Contact Theory
In 1954, Gordon Allport published The Nature of Prejudice, which included his Contact Theory regarding race relations. Essentially, Allport put forth that “many kinds of prejudice can be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in pursuit of common goals” (Rothblum & Bond, 1996, p. 191). Although this theory applies to racial difference, psychologists speculate that this contact theory can be applied to sexual differences as well (Rothblum & Bond; Kennedy and Voegtle, 1998). Allport’s Contact Theory includes five conditions to promote effective contact and reduce prejudice:

1. The contact should be approved by a person in authority.
2. The contact needs to take place over a period of time, not just once.
3. Contact must be informal and personal.
4. Contact should not take place within a competitive arena.
5. Both parties need to be of equal status. (Kennedy & Voegtle, 1998)

Allport’s Contact Theory can translate from racial difference to sexual difference. The more contact there is, the more likely there will be an understanding, or at least some level of comfort, with the other, different population. This theory demonstrates how a heterosexual would not be prejudiced, or learn not to discriminate, against a gay, lesbian or bisexual person.

Helms’ Model of White Racial Consciousness
Helms’ research on white racial consciousness is another model based on racial difference. Once again, we can see parallels between race and sexuality and how the “majority” group develops an identity in relation to the “minority” group. Helms’ model includes five stages: Contact, Disintegration, Reintegration, Pseudo-Independence, and Autonomy.

Contact occurs when the majority becomes aware that the minority exists. In the disintegration stage, the person “is forced to acknowledge that he or she is white” (Helms, 1984, p. 156). Adapting this to sexuality, Washington and Evans describe the disintegration stage as “developing an awareness of heterosexual privilege” (p. 196). In the reintegration stage, the person becomes more hostile toward the minority group and closely aligns with the majority group he or she is part of. One can imagine this happens often with college students. The fourth stage, Pseudo-Independence, is characterized by an intellectual acceptance and curiosity about race (or in this case, sexuality). Finally, Autonomy is when the person accepts racial differences and becomes cognizant of the minority person as an individual whom he or she respects and appreciates.

This model is helpful in demonstrating how heterosexuals develop an understanding and appreciation of sexual differences. At each stage in this model, an individual can choose to advance but may also resist progress and thus, not evolve to the next stage. This model goes beyond Allport’s Contact Theory; prejudice is not only eliminated but the majority person learns to respect and appreciate the minority (oppressed) individual.

Washington and Evans co-authored a chapter in the book Beyond Tolerance: Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on Campus entitled “Becoming an Ally.” In it, they discuss Lawrence Kohlberg’s and Carol Gilligan’s theories of moral development to help explain what motivates heterosexuals to become allies. They also include their own levels of becoming an ally.

Kohlberg
In order to explain what motivates heterosexuals to become allies, Washington and Evans use Kohlberg’s theory on moral reasoning. “Since involvement in gay rights advocacy is a moral issue, moral development theory suggests some possible underlying reasons for such activity” (Washington and Evans, 1991, p. 197). Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning has three levels that include pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.

At the pre-conventional level, an individual makes decisions based on what is good for him or her. At this level, heterosexuals may choose to act as allies “to protect their own interests or to get something out of such involvement (e.g., if this issue is particularly important to a supervisor whose approval is sought)” (Washington and Evans, 1991, p. 197). Kohlberg’s conventional level occurs when decisions are made that conform to a group’s norms. Individuals at this level may act as allies to support friends who are gay or lesbian or to uphold their institution’s policy of non-discrimination. When an ally takes on an active role to create policies because it is the right thing to do, he or she has reached Kohlberg’s third level, post-conventional reasoning. The focus at this level is on justice.

Gilligan
Determining motivation in becoming an ally results in an examination of the three levels of Gilligan’s Principle of Care: taking care of self, taking care of others and taking care of both self and others. In the first stage, taking care of self, an ally may become an advocate to look good or to protect him or herself from criticism (for not getting involved). At the second level, taking care of others, the ally reasons that it is his or her role to take care of gay, lesbian and bisexual students. In the third stage, the individual believes in equality and respect for differences, wishes to make a better world for everyone and works to achieve these goals.

It is interesting to see how Washington and Evans have used Kohlberg and Gilligan to determine what motivates individuals to become allies. I wonder, however, if allies see themselves and their development in Kohlberg or Gilligan’s stages. Washington and Evans believe an ally is someone who is at Kohlberg’s post-conventional level and Gilligan’s third level in the ethic of care. Yet, we know that very few people are at Kohlberg’s third level, especially very few women. Is it possible these models do not quite describe an ally’s development, morally or otherwise?

Four Levels to Becoming an Ally
Washington and Evans state that there are four basic levels of becoming an ally: 1) awareness, 2) knowledge/education, 3) skills, and 4) action. The first level, awareness, refers to being aware of who you are and how you are different from and similar to gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals. The second level refers to acquiring knowledge about sexual orientation. What laws, policies and practices affect gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals? The third level, skills, is an area in which people often fall short. Allies must develop skills in communicating the knowledge they have gained or learned from attending workshops, by raising awareness or from developing support connections. Action can be the most frightening step but it is also the most important. Action to end oppression and change society as a whole is challenging.

Washington and Evans’ four levels help provide individuals who consider themselves allies, or who want to be allies, with a framework for development. You begin by being aware of sexual orientation and educating yourself about it. However, this list does not explain how an individual develops to a point of determining his or her commitment to becoming an ally. Why do people choose to educate themselves about different sexual orientations and then continue through the steps to advocacy for gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals?

Herek’s Research on Heterosexual Attitudes
Herek’s work does not necessarily offer a model of ally identity development, but it instead offers interesting and useful research on heterosexual attitudes toward gay, lesbian and bisexual persons. Herek (1994) reports that contact between heterosexual, lesbian, and gay individuals is related to heterosexual attitudes. Those individuals who have openly gay and lesbian friends and family are more likely to hold positive attitudes.

Herek (1994) lists the following conditions that are associated with more positive attitudes toward lesbians and gay men:

1. More interpersonal contact with lesbians and gay men.
2. Having contact with more than one lesbian or gay individual.
3. Having contact with a lesbian or gay person who is a close friend or relative.
4. Learning that the person is lesbian or gay through direct, rather than indirect, disclosure. (Herek, 1994)

Herek has also determined that attitudes are influenced by demographic factors such as gender and education. Herek states that individuals are “more likely to hold positive attitudes toward lesbians and gay men to the extent that they accept nontraditional roles for men and women, are not religious or belong to a liberal religious denomination, describe themselves as politically moderate or liberal, and have had positive interpersonal experience with gay men or lesbians” (Herek, 1994, p. 217). He also determined that one was more likely to have contact with lesbian and gay individuals if an individual was highly educated, politically liberal, young, and female. However, in all of Herek’s research, no single factor could explain heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbian women and gay men.

Kennedy and Voegtle’s Model of Ally Identity Development
Kennedy and Voegtle conducted extensive interviews with nine individuals who were identified as being allies by gay and lesbian organizations. They investigated the developmental processes involved in moving from higher levels of homophobia to active involvement in supporting the rights of persons who are gay and lesbian. It is interesting to note, in light of Herek’s research, that all of the allies identified were college educated: three had doctorates, three had master’s degrees, and three had bachelor’s degrees. Five of the allies were female, four were male; three of the allies interviewed were educators. After extensive interviews with the participants, Kennedy and Voegtle came up with the following model of ally development:

1. Allies’ earliest remembrances were of an environment of tolerance.
2. The “coming out” of a friend or colleague took place.
3. Multiple relationships with gays and lesbians.
4. Enlarging of philosophical/religious-spiritual framework.
5. Continued action of support and appreciation. (Kennedy & Voegtle, 1998)

Many of the allies mentioned their parents’ openness to gay or lesbian issues. Most recalled an early environment of tolerance and acceptance of persons who were different although often homosexuality was not directly mentioned. When a close friend came out to them, many allies reported re-examining their views of homosexuality. Most allies reported developing many close relationships with persons who were gay or lesbian, which has led to increased understanding of the detrimental impact of homophobia and an awareness of the scope of injustice. The allies’ frameworks were often linked to other social movements such as feminism, racial equality, or social justice. Most allies integrated actions on gay and lesbian issues into their professional lives and reported that their role as an ally strengthened over time.

My development as an ally is reflected in Kennedy and Voegtle’s (1998) model. I grew up in a very tolerant home with a liberal, politically active mother, and I was exposed at a very young age to social activism. My interest in supporting gay and lesbian individuals deepened when one of my good friends from high school came out. Today, I have many close friends who are gay or lesbian.

Although Kennedy and Voegtle’s (1998) model reflects my development, it does not account for individuals who grew up in a home with parents who were not tolerant or accepting of difference. Yet, many individuals see the world differently from their parents and are able to develop into allies. Kennedy and Voegtle’s model does not account for these individuals.

How does ally identity development affect or relate to college students? Indulge me while I tell you my stepfather’s story of becoming an ally. My stepfather, Ray, grew up in a white, blue-collar family in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His parents were not especially open-minded, and Ray remembers there was only one student of color in his high school. He went to Juniata College, a liberal arts college in a small, rural town in eastern Pennsylvania where the student body looked very much like him. As I began research on allies, I wondered when my stepfather’s transformation took place. When did he begin to work for oppressed groups? His identity changed when he divorced his first wife (who held many of his parents’ beliefs about people) and moved to Columbia, Maryland. Columbia is a planned community based on the ideals of respect for difference and a belief in community. The community is mixed racially and socioeconomically, and is liberal. Ray had always been tolerant, but it was the influence of his community that pushed him toward advocacy.

Do you see the parallel? Many of our students come to college with little exposure to difference. In college, there is contact and learning with a variety of people from different parts of the country with different racial, ethnic and sexual identities. If colleges and universities can provide a community that moves beyond tolerance, where each person in the community respects and embraces difference, we can help many students move toward becoming allies themselves.

These models illustrate that contact over time as well as being a part of a community demonstrating openness, tolerance, acceptance and advocacy can create an atmosphere where individuals discover and learn how to be allies. The academic community is an ideal setting for this type of acceptance to develop; unfortunately, universities have not achieved this type of community yet. However, the potential exists.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in terms of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Dante (1265-1321)

While at Muhlenberg College, I maintained my neutrality when I had an opportunity to act, to speak up, and to fight for justice. It is easy to do nothing; in fact, we are socially conditioned not to “rock the boat.” However, if we want to create accepting, welcoming communities where every member of the community feels safe and respected, then it is time for allies to find their voices and speak up.

Following are a list of recommendations for college and university administrators that will help move one towards advocacy and action (and beyond the posting of an ally card). Look around your campus environment--your office or classroom--and see it through the eyes of a LGBT individual. Are there any signs of acceptance (rainbow stickers, the human rights organization equal sign or any pink, blue or black triangles)? Do you display books, magazines and posters that include or are for LGBT faculty, staff or students? Below are a few questions regarding policies and procedures, programming and personal issues to help get you started.

Policies and Procedures
· Does your college have a university-wide non-discrimination policy that specifically includes sexual orientation? If yes, what about the state you live in?
· Do personnel polices and procedures have heterosexist references?
· Does the campus bookstore order and display gay publications where other magazines are displayed?
· Does your college or university offer health benefits for same sex partners?

Programming
· Do you show gay-themed movies, plays and other events (and not just during “Coming Out Week”)?
· Does your college stock gay, lesbian and related books in the bookstore, library and anywhere else that has a library (i.e. the Women’s Center)?
· Does your campus bring gay and lesbian speakers to campus on a regular basis?

Personal
· Do you attend conferences/workshops that deal with sexual orientation?
· Do you invite same sex partners to any event at which spouses are included?
· Do you assume everyone is heterosexual?
· Would you be named an ally by a LGBT colleague or friend?

The HESA program has helped me become a better administrator, but more importantly, this program has made me a better person. As a graduate of this program, I will strive to make the Academy a better place, a model of inclusivity and social justice. The education I received has not only helped me understand the challenges facing LGBT students, faculty and staff, but has given me the courage to speak up on these issues.

Abbott, E. & Liddell, D. (1996). Alienation of students: Does sexual orientation matter? College Student Affairs Journal, 16 (1), 45-55.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.

Comstock, G. D. (1991). Violence against lesbians and gay men. New York: Columbia University Press.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of discrimination and harassment in a university community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 317-321.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1991). Teaching lesbian and gay development: A pedagogy of the oppressed. In W.G. Tierney (Ed.), Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing a critical agenda (p. 213-233). New York: Praeger.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’ experiences of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 383-395.

D’Augelli, A. R. & Rose, M. L. (1990). Homophobia in a university community: Attitudes and experience of white heterosexual freshman. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 484-491.

D’Emilio, J. (1990). The campus environment for gay and lesbian life. Academe, 76, p. 16-19.

Duke University Task Force Report. (1998). Rationale for establishing a university center for lesbian, gay and bisexual life. www.duke.edu

Evans, N. J. & D’Augelli, A. R. (1996). Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people in college. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The Lives of Lesbians,Gays, and Bisexuals: Children to Adults, p. 201-226. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publications.

Helms, J. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on counseling: A Black and White model. Counseling Psychologist, 12 (4), 153-164.

Herek, G. M. (1993). Documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus: The Yale sexual orientation survey. Journal of Homosexuality, 25, 15-30.

Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes towards lesbians and gay men: A review of the empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research and clinical applications (p. 206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kennedy, J. & Voegtle, K. (1998, March). Becoming an ally. Paper presented at a conference of the National Association for Women, Baltimore, MD.

Levine, H. & Evans, N. J. (1991). The development of gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gay, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (p. 1-24). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Malaney, G. D., Williams, E. A., & Geller, W. W. (1997). Assessing campus climate for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals at two institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 38 (4), 365-375.

Marszalek III, J. F. & Goree, C. T. (1995). Practicing what we preach? Gay students perceptions of student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 15 (1), 80-86.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. (1991). Anti-gay/lesbian violence, victimization & defamation in 1990. NGTLF Policy Institute.

Ness, C. (1998, November 12). Prejudice among teens on the rise. San Francisco Examiner, www.examiner.com

Norris, W. P. (1992). Liberal attitudes and homophobic acts: The paradoxes of homosexual experience in a liberal institution. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3/4), 81-120.

Raissiguier, C. (1997). Negotiating school, identity, and desire: Students speak out from the Midwest. Educational Foundations, 11 (1), 31-54.

Rothblum, E. D. & Bond, L. A. (1996). Preventing heterosexism and homophobia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sears, J. T. & Williams, W. L. (1997). Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Tierney, W.G. (1992). Building academic communities of difference: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus. Change, March/April, 40-46.

University of Vermont Bias Related Incident Log. (1998).

Washington, J. & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an Ally. In N. J. Evans & V. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus (p. 195-204). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. (1983). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc.

Erika L. Nestor received a bachelor’s degree from Indiana University in 1988 and a master’s degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration from UVM in 1999. She is currently the Coordinator of Special Projects at the Women’s Center at UVM and the co-coordinator of the Freedom to Marry Task Force for Chittenden County, Vermont.