This article was downloaded by: [Brunel University London] On: 24 October 2014, At: 02:11 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Lesbian Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjls20
A Lesbian/Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People a
Becky J. Liddle PhD & Angela M. Stowe PhD
b c
a
Department of Counseling and Counseling Psychology , Auburn University , Auburn , AL , 36849-5222 , USA b
Counseling and Counseling Psychology , Auburn University , USA c
Counseling and Wellness Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , AL , 35294-2100 , USA Published online: 14 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Becky J. Liddle PhD & Angela M. Stowe PhD (2002) A Lesbian/ Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6:3-4, 99-108, DOI: 10.1300/ J155v06n03_09 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_09
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
A Lesbian/Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People Becky J. Liddle Angela M. Stowe
SUMMARY. Advantages of a lesbian/heterosexual team approach to education on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues are examined and a case study is analyzed. A lesbian guest lecturer provided a contact experience, personal anecdotes, passion, and expertise. Facilitation of later class discussion by the heterosexual instructor allowed for frank discussion among students, processing of presentation content, and modeling of gay-affirmative attitudes by the instructor and other students. Summaries of the guest lecture (fantasy exercise and informational lecture) and later discussion are provided. Student comments during discussion demonstrated evidence of deep challenge, attitude change, and heightened understanding. [Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Becky J. Liddle, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5222 (E-mail: [email protected]). Angela M. Stowe, PhD, was a doctoral candidate, Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Auburn University, when this article was written. She is now a counselor at the Counseling and Wellness Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-2100 (E-mail: [email protected]). [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “A Lesbian/Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People.” Liddle, Becky J., and Angela M. Stowe. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Lesbian Studies (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 6, No. 3/4, 2002, pp. 99-108; and: Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (ed: Elizabeth P. Cramer) Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002, pp. 99-108. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
99
100
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
KEYWORDS. Homosexuality (attitudes toward), attitude change, sexual orientation, homophobia, college students Early in the twentieth century we already knew that processing of information was important for learning (Dewey, 1938). Recent theories of attitude change such as dual processing theories and the cognitive miser metatheory all theorize the centrality of processing in attitude change (Chaiken, 1980, Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, and Fiske & Taylor, 1984, as cited in Johnston & Coolen, 1995). Despite this, many attempts at improving attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people have been one-shot informational interventions, with no opportunity for processing. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that results of these interventions have been mixed. For example, two articles report LGBT panels that produced significant attitude change (Green, Dixon, & Gold-Neil, 1993; Lance, 1987), whereas a third was found to be ineffective (Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000). The successful LGBT panels involved extended processing–either a three-hour question and answer period (Lance) or informal conversation in addition to the formal presentation (Green, Dixon, & Gold-Neil). Cotton-Huston and Waite, whose panel was found to be ineffective in changing attitudes, speculated afterward that “perhaps an intervention time period that allowed for more discussion and greater exploration of issues would have a greater chance of producing effective change” (p. 126). The sexual orientation of the presenter may also be important. Cramer (1997) found more attitude change when an educational unit was presented by an out lesbian than when presented by an out heterosexual woman. Contact with LGBT people has been shown to be linked to positive attitudes (e.g., Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000) and to have positive effects on attitudes (Case & B. Liddle, 2001). This article describes an approach that included both ingredients: a lesbian presenter and opportunities for processing of information and reactions. A lesbian counseling psychology professor experienced in doing education about LGBT issues provided a guest lecture in an undergraduate Counseling and Human Services course attended by students in pharmacy, nutrition and dietetics, family development, and psychology. The following week the heterosexual instructor conducted a class discussion, inviting the students to process their reactions to the presentation. Anecdotal comments during that discussion indicated that the combination of the presentation and the follow-up discussion were remarkably effective in changing some students’ attitudes. Inviting an LGBT panel or guest lecturer to an undergraduate course is commonplace. What seemed uniquely powerful in this case study was the combination of the presentation with a follow-up discussion led by the hetero-
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
101
sexual course instructor the following week. This team approach has a number of advantages. First, the heterosexual instructor need not have tremendous LGBT expertise. Second, homophobic students often see LGBT presenters as being self-serving or biased. Because credibility of presenter is an important factor in attitude change (Johnson & Coolen, 1995), having the discussion led by a heterosexual may provide more credibility with some students. The facilitator also serves as a gay-affirmative role model. Having a discussion with the lesbian presenter absent allows students to speak more freely, allowing homophobic students an opportunity to process their reactions, which is an important part of the attitude change process. Finally, holding this frank discussion in the absence of the presenter is merciful for her. Doing anti-homophobia education in conservative environments is exhausting work, and no matter how strong one’s self-esteem, it is insulting and tiring to hear contempt for oneself and one’s people. A heterosexual ally can facilitate the discussion without taking (as much) personal offense at negative attitudes expressed. GUEST LECTURE (NARRATOR: BECKY LIDDLE) Having a gay or lesbian presenter offers several advantages. In this case, I am not only an expert in the area (as LGBT research is my area of research) but I also provide the class with a visible example of a professionally successful lesbian. This is important in combating the stereotypes of homophobic students and also in providing role models for LGBT students. Having a lesbian presenter also allows access to a level of passion as well as personal anecdotes that might not be available to many heterosexual lecturers. To engage students actively in my presentation I begin with a fantasy and values clarification exercise in which students find themselves on a planet where nearly everyone is gay, and straight people are oppressed. (See Appendix for full text.) After the fantasy is read, the students must stand beneath one of four signs indicating how they would live their lives in this situation. All four options have serious drawbacks. If students want to offer a fifth option I let them, but I insist that all students make some choice. When they begin to grumble, I say “You’re right. They all suck.” This both gets a laugh and also makes the point that there are no good options for coping with stigma. When explaining their choices, students invariably refer back to their values, personalities, and/or their life situations. I point out that, because values and circumstances vary from person to person, decisions about stigma management will also vary. After students return to their seats I begin my lecture by stating that every major professional mental health organization has come out officially as
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
102
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
gay-affirmative and I read a statement from at least one. This helps combat the view that I have no official sanction for my gay-affirmative views, which are seen as radical on this conservative Alabama campus. I cover use of gay-affirmative language, then give a brief overview of the typical coming out process. I explicitly come out as a lesbian at this point, using my own coming out process as an example. I believe that being open about my sexual orientation is an important part of the intervention, both because contact with LGBT people can have positive effects on attitudes (Case & B. Liddle, 2001), and also because being able to use personal experiences brings the lecture alive. Next I summarize the research on the causes of sexual orientation, stating that there is no credible evidence for social/parenting theories (e.g., any correlation between rejecting fathers and gay sons is more parsimoniously explained by fathers rejecting non-traditional sons than by sons somehow becoming gay because of a distant father), and that research shows some biological basis (e.g., identical twin research showing high concordance). Covering the biological evidence is important because belief that sexual orientation is a choice is correlated with negative attitudes (e.g., K. Liddle, 2000). After ten years of giving these presentations, I have come to believe that (at least at this university, where 44% of undergraduates believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and it should be taken literally, word for word; K. Liddle, 2000), no lecture on LGBT issues can hope to be effective without addressing certain Bible verses. In this lecture I referred to 1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh” and discussed how it was used for hundreds of years to justify slavery. I said I was sure that no one now sees any Bible quote as a justification for slavery, but that, taken out of context, certain Bible verses are very convenient for people who are looking to justify their behavior. I then mention various oft-cited passages from the Bible and explain how misinterpretation or mistranslation has led to the impression that they condemn gay and lesbian people. This content is taken from Helminiak (1994). I say repeatedly that my goal in talking about the Bible is to let them know that there is no conflict between being a good Christian and being a gay-affirmative teacher, counselor, social worker, etc. I refer interested (and skeptical) students to Helminiak’s book, which our university library purchased at my request. Reinterpreting Bible verses allows fundamentalist Christians to maintain their literal interpretation of the Bible while questioning the view that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. I come prepared to talk about additional topics: legal issues including discrimination and marriage, medical issues, parenting, community resources, etc. However, I encourage students to ask questions, and allow them to guide the remainder of my lecture. In my responses I try to be both informative and
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
103
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
personal–not only outlining the abstract issues but also saying how these issues have affected my own life and those of my friends. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION FACILITATED BY HETEROSEXUAL ALLY (NARRATOR: ANGELA STOWE) At the beginning of the discussion, students expressed very negative reactions to the LGBT lecture. Many said that they believed the presenter was trying to “shove her opinion down their throats” and trying to “force them to believe what she believed.” One student said she was so upset that after class she went home and called her mother and cried for an hour because she couldn’t believe that she “had to listen to that in a class.” Another said “I wasn’t even going to participate in the exercise. I didn’t want to get out of my seat. I couldn’t believe she was having us think about such things. I don’t agree with it and I didn’t want to participate in it.” Students also said they did not like how she challenged their religious beliefs when she discussed the Bible. Throughout this portion of the discussion, I let them vent their feelings without challenging them. I empathized (without agreeing with their assessments) by saying repeatedly that I understood that this was a difficult topic and was very upsetting to them. I would say that I could see they were shaken by it, or that they had very strong feelings. I refrained from challenging their opinions to allow for the discharge of the negative emotion. This restraint was difficult, but I knew that until they felt heard they would be unable to move on to a new understanding of the experience. After extensive venting of feelings, I moved the discussion on, asking what they found helpful about the presentation, and what new insights they had gained. Students admitted that the presentation challenged them to think about issues they had not considered before. I acted primarily as a facilitator, inviting other students to contribute their opinions when some view needed to be challenged. For example, when a student said, “if someone came to me and told me that she thought she was a lesbian, it is my job as a believer to witness to her–I would have to tell her that it is a sin,” I asked what other students thought. Two students, identifying as fellow Christians, said that telling someone that they are sinning will not help the person and might turn that individual away. When a student began monopolizing the discussion I would say something like, “So you believe that homosexuality is a sin because of your strong religious background. Who can respond in light of what Dr. Liddle shared last week?” Most of the time, I did not offer my personal opinions. However, occasionally I felt I had to intervene. At one point I reminded the class that they were
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
104
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
choosing human services professions where it would be their job to help the individuals who come to them in need. I stated, “As a human service professional, it is not your job, responsibility, or right to judge clients or patients. It is unethical to impose personal values on anyone. If you encounter clients with whom you have value conflicts which will impede your ability to serve them effectively, it is your responsibility to refer them to someone who can help them.” By the end of class, each student in the class had participated at least once, most students more than once. By the end of the discussion, some students seemed to show dramatic attitude change. The student who at first said he had almost refused to participate in the fantasy exercise stated, “I changed my mind. I’ve thought about it and if I had to do what she [the presenter] did, I wouldn’t do it any differently. I wouldn’t hold back anything. I would tell it how it is. I would do exactly what she did.” In response, another student, who had also initially disagreed with the presentation said, “Yeah, that really takes guts to talk about it the way she did.” Another student said, “I bet she wanted us to feel intense emotions. Maybe she was trying to provoke a response out of us.” Other students reported that the presentation helped them understand how the lives of LGBT people are affected by prejudice and discrimination. These comments came from the same students who, at the beginning of the discussion, had emphatically stated that they were offended by the presentation. Some students showed evidence of greater understanding of LGBT issues. For example, close to the end of the discussion, one student said that she had a gay friend who was not publicly out and she “now would understand if he decided to never come out.” Another student demonstrated new understanding by admitting that she had not thought about how saying something like “so tell me, are you dating anyone . . . what’s he like?” could send a message that she was not open to a lesbian relationship. A student who works in a daycare setting said in the past she had asked children about their “mom and dad.” She now realized that she needed to be aware of how she asked children about their parents. Students also said that they had not thought about the issues raised in the presentation such as health care, questions about marital status on forms, insurance, and marriage issues. Several students also reported how beneficial the presentation was in helping them understand the daily issues faced by LGBT people. The progression of the discussion from anger to discussion to learning and attitude change was exciting to watch, and convinced us of the efficacy of this team approach. It is possible that some positive student statements were the result of trying to please the instructor, who was clearly gay-affirmative. However, the fact that students felt free to express their homophobic attitudes early in the discussion suggests that the stated changes in their views were likely legitimate.
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
105
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This article discusses a team approach to changing students’ attitudes concerning LGBT people: the combination of a guest lecture by a lesbian professor and a follow-up discussion facilitated by a heterosexual instructor. Although no formal attitude assessment was conducted, student comments during the discussion seemed to indicate that this combination resulted in attitude change and greater understanding of LGBT issues among some students. We believe that scientific advances can emerge from serendipitous events. We hope that the anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of this team approach will result in more formal research assessing its impact. To be of greatest use to future educators such research should have a qualitative component (examining students’ beliefs about the impact of various components on their attitudes) as well as the more typical quantitative (pre-test/post-test) component. While quantitative studies can be useful in demonstrating effectiveness, without qualitative components determining which parts of the interventions were and were not effective, other presenters have little guidance in formulating their own programs. We have presented details of our program to aid those readers who might be interested in approximate replication of various parts. However, we have no illusions that the exact content of this presentation and discussion form some magical whole that is more effective than many other programs. We believe (based on student comments during the discussion) that the important aspects of this program were the presence of a lesbian presenter, a frank and engaging presentation that maintained student interest and challenged their existing views, and the opportunity to process their reactions with a trusted heterosexual facilitator. We hope that our positive experience with this formula will induce others to try this approach and to research its impact on student attitudes. REFERENCES Case, A. B., & Liddle, B. J. (2001, August). Factors integral to valuing diversity among majority group members. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Cotten-Huston, A. L., & Waite, B. M. (2000). Anti-homosexual attitudes in college students: Predictors and classroom interventions. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 117-133. Cramer, E. P. (1997). Effects of an educational unit about lesbian identity development and disclosure in a social work methods course. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 461-472. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
106
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Green, S., Dixon P., & Gold-Neil, V. (1993). The effects of a gay/lesbian panel discussion on college student attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and persons with AIDS (PWAs). Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 47-63. Helminiak, D. A. (1994). What the Bible really says about homosexuality. San Francisco: Alamo Square. Johnston, L., & Coolen, P. (1995). A dual processing approach to stereotype change. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 660-674. Lance, L. M. (1987). The effects of interaction with gay persons on attitudes toward homosexuality. Human Relations, 40, 329-336. Liddle, K. (2000). Close encounters: Visibility and acceptance of gays and lesbians. Unpublished master’s thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. McNaught, B. (1993). Gay issues in the workplace. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
APPENDIX: Fantasy Exercise (Adapted from a fantasy by Brian McNaught, 1993, pp. 18-23) “I’m going to walk you through a fantasy. It’ll take about 10 minutes. At the end I’ll ask you to make some decisions about how you would live your life. I’ll ask you to share those decisions and why you made them. (For this exercise we need to assume you are heterosexual. If you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, please pretend for the duration of this exercise that you are heterosexual.) . . . Relax. As I read, try to imagine what this situation would really feel like. “Tomorrow you wake up, stretch, look around, get your bearings, and realize that your entire life, as you now experience it, has been a dream. Your heart sinks as you remember that on your planet, nearly everyone is gay or lesbian. You’re still heterosexual, but everyone you know is gay or lesbian. Virtually all public figures are either gay or pretend to be. Your parents (both are male if you’re male; both are female if you’re female) are gay or lesbian, as are your siblings. All children on your planet are created through cloning, and only same-sex couples are allowed to reproduce. (If you find a clinic that will clone known heterosexuals, and you manage to have a baby, the government may take your child away if they find out you’re heterosexual. After all, how could anyone be a fit parent to a child of a different gender? Anyone in their right mind could see that’s not natural!) You’ve heard there are other heterosexual people, but they are despised. You don’t know any other heterosexuals yourself and don’t know where to find them. “You realize that the life you dreamed on earth was just wishful thinking–you just wanted to be yourself, and belong. So you created this happy
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
107
dream world where everyone else was like you. But in fact, you are alone. You are, sadly, a heterosexual, and (although you’ve tried to convince yourself otherwise) you know you cannot change that. “You know your parents assume you’re gay and would be terribly hurt and worried if they knew you were attracted to members of the other gender. Your religious leaders tell you attraction between different genders is unnatural and sick . . . yet you know it feels right to you. You only get romantic feelings toward members of the other sex, and the idea of making love to someone of your own gender sounds disgusting to you. “Up until now you’ve tried to fake it to please your parents and friends and society. You’ve tried dating others of your gender, and you like them OK, but you never fall in love. You’ve even tried to have sex, but the idea of sex with someone of your gender turns your stomach. You nearly always bail out before you get far. You did follow through and have gay sex once, and it was awful. Afterwards you felt dirty and shameful and shaky. “You went to a counselor and confessed you are attracted to members of the other gender. The counselor was supportive and told you that’s OK–that heterosexuality is natural for many people, but that life as a heterosexual is hard–you’ll face ostracism and discrimination in housing and work, and some occupations will be completely closed to you. You realize you have some difficult choices to make: “You could find someone of your own gender that you like OK, and marry, and hope they won’t want sex very often. But the idea of that kind of sex makes you queasy, and the idea of sharing your life with someone you’re not in love with makes you sad. “You could stay single forever. Resign yourself to having no one to be your companion through life, and to having no children, though you long for them. “You think perhaps you’d better live true to yourself as a heterosexual. But you know if you live openly, you will lose many of your friends and possibly be rejected by your family. You cannot be a teacher or minister or serve in the military. In most other fields you can find a job eventually, but many employers will not hire you if they know you’re heterosexual, and if you don’t tell them up front, and they find out later, you may lose your job. Most landlords won’t rent to known heterosexuals, so if you can’t afford to buy, it may be hard to find an apartment to rent. You may find your true love, but life will be hard. You’ll get threatening phone calls, you’ll be called perverts, your children (if you manage to have any) will be harassed at school, or may be taken away entirely. “You’re not sure you’re up for all that, so you think maybe you’ll live a heterosexual life, but secretly. That would be easier on your family and friends and career. But then you realize how lonely that would be. You’d be unlikely
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
108
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
to find a lover–they wouldn’t know you were heterosexual and vice versa, and so you might never find each other. You could settle for going to sleazy heterosexual bars and picking up partners, but you’re unlikely to find your true love. You could go into any career you like, but you’d have to stay on guard–if you have a life partner or someone you’re dating, you cannot mention them at work. When people ask what you did over the weekend or on vacation you’ll have to be very vague, or lie. If you ever are discovered, your career may be ruined. Your parents will constantly ask if you’re dating, and will worry about you. Your friends will constantly try to fix you up with people–always people of your own gender of course. No one–not even your closest friends–will know you very well, because you have to screen everything you say, to keep up the pretense of being normal. “You’ve looked at all your options and none looks very appealing: Be open about your heterosexuality and face contempt and discrimination; be secret about your heterosexuality and be lonely and scared; or fake it to fit in: either by marrying someone of your own gender, or by staying single forever. These are tough choices. I’m very sorry you had the misfortune to be born heterosexual, but you were. Which option will you choose? “Please look at the four signs in the four corners of the room. These are your options. Choose one of these options and go to that corner of the room. Then I’d like you to share why you made the decision that you did.” [As I tape up the four signs I read them aloud:] [1] “I would stay closeted but would try to find a (hidden) community of heterosexuals, probably mostly in sleazy heterosexual bars. I would be lonely, but I could have a successful career, as long as I’m very careful.” [2] “I would stay closeted and marry a gay person of my gender and have gay sex and a family. This might not be fair to my partner (who will be hurt that I hate sex so much and will always love me more than I love them), but this is the only way I know to have a family and I really want kids.” [3] “I would come out as a heterosexual and work to end discrimination against people like me. I would be discriminated against in housing and work and church, and I may be rejected by my family, but I have to be true to myself.” [4] “I would stay closeted and stay single and celibate forever. I would give up my chance of ever having a spouse or children.”
Journal of Lesbian Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjls20
A Lesbian/Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People a
Becky J. Liddle PhD & Angela M. Stowe PhD
b c
a
Department of Counseling and Counseling Psychology , Auburn University , Auburn , AL , 36849-5222 , USA b
Counseling and Counseling Psychology , Auburn University , USA c
Counseling and Wellness Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , AL , 35294-2100 , USA Published online: 14 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Becky J. Liddle PhD & Angela M. Stowe PhD (2002) A Lesbian/ Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6:3-4, 99-108, DOI: 10.1300/ J155v06n03_09 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_09
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
A Lesbian/Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People Becky J. Liddle Angela M. Stowe
SUMMARY. Advantages of a lesbian/heterosexual team approach to education on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues are examined and a case study is analyzed. A lesbian guest lecturer provided a contact experience, personal anecdotes, passion, and expertise. Facilitation of later class discussion by the heterosexual instructor allowed for frank discussion among students, processing of presentation content, and modeling of gay-affirmative attitudes by the instructor and other students. Summaries of the guest lecture (fantasy exercise and informational lecture) and later discussion are provided. Student comments during discussion demonstrated evidence of deep challenge, attitude change, and heightened understanding. [Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Becky J. Liddle, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5222 (E-mail: [email protected]). Angela M. Stowe, PhD, was a doctoral candidate, Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Auburn University, when this article was written. She is now a counselor at the Counseling and Wellness Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-2100 (E-mail: [email protected]). [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “A Lesbian/Straight Team Approach to Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People.” Liddle, Becky J., and Angela M. Stowe. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Lesbian Studies (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 6, No. 3/4, 2002, pp. 99-108; and: Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (ed: Elizabeth P. Cramer) Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002, pp. 99-108. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
99
100
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
KEYWORDS. Homosexuality (attitudes toward), attitude change, sexual orientation, homophobia, college students Early in the twentieth century we already knew that processing of information was important for learning (Dewey, 1938). Recent theories of attitude change such as dual processing theories and the cognitive miser metatheory all theorize the centrality of processing in attitude change (Chaiken, 1980, Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, and Fiske & Taylor, 1984, as cited in Johnston & Coolen, 1995). Despite this, many attempts at improving attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people have been one-shot informational interventions, with no opportunity for processing. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that results of these interventions have been mixed. For example, two articles report LGBT panels that produced significant attitude change (Green, Dixon, & Gold-Neil, 1993; Lance, 1987), whereas a third was found to be ineffective (Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000). The successful LGBT panels involved extended processing–either a three-hour question and answer period (Lance) or informal conversation in addition to the formal presentation (Green, Dixon, & Gold-Neil). Cotton-Huston and Waite, whose panel was found to be ineffective in changing attitudes, speculated afterward that “perhaps an intervention time period that allowed for more discussion and greater exploration of issues would have a greater chance of producing effective change” (p. 126). The sexual orientation of the presenter may also be important. Cramer (1997) found more attitude change when an educational unit was presented by an out lesbian than when presented by an out heterosexual woman. Contact with LGBT people has been shown to be linked to positive attitudes (e.g., Cotten-Huston & Waite, 2000) and to have positive effects on attitudes (Case & B. Liddle, 2001). This article describes an approach that included both ingredients: a lesbian presenter and opportunities for processing of information and reactions. A lesbian counseling psychology professor experienced in doing education about LGBT issues provided a guest lecture in an undergraduate Counseling and Human Services course attended by students in pharmacy, nutrition and dietetics, family development, and psychology. The following week the heterosexual instructor conducted a class discussion, inviting the students to process their reactions to the presentation. Anecdotal comments during that discussion indicated that the combination of the presentation and the follow-up discussion were remarkably effective in changing some students’ attitudes. Inviting an LGBT panel or guest lecturer to an undergraduate course is commonplace. What seemed uniquely powerful in this case study was the combination of the presentation with a follow-up discussion led by the hetero-
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
101
sexual course instructor the following week. This team approach has a number of advantages. First, the heterosexual instructor need not have tremendous LGBT expertise. Second, homophobic students often see LGBT presenters as being self-serving or biased. Because credibility of presenter is an important factor in attitude change (Johnson & Coolen, 1995), having the discussion led by a heterosexual may provide more credibility with some students. The facilitator also serves as a gay-affirmative role model. Having a discussion with the lesbian presenter absent allows students to speak more freely, allowing homophobic students an opportunity to process their reactions, which is an important part of the attitude change process. Finally, holding this frank discussion in the absence of the presenter is merciful for her. Doing anti-homophobia education in conservative environments is exhausting work, and no matter how strong one’s self-esteem, it is insulting and tiring to hear contempt for oneself and one’s people. A heterosexual ally can facilitate the discussion without taking (as much) personal offense at negative attitudes expressed. GUEST LECTURE (NARRATOR: BECKY LIDDLE) Having a gay or lesbian presenter offers several advantages. In this case, I am not only an expert in the area (as LGBT research is my area of research) but I also provide the class with a visible example of a professionally successful lesbian. This is important in combating the stereotypes of homophobic students and also in providing role models for LGBT students. Having a lesbian presenter also allows access to a level of passion as well as personal anecdotes that might not be available to many heterosexual lecturers. To engage students actively in my presentation I begin with a fantasy and values clarification exercise in which students find themselves on a planet where nearly everyone is gay, and straight people are oppressed. (See Appendix for full text.) After the fantasy is read, the students must stand beneath one of four signs indicating how they would live their lives in this situation. All four options have serious drawbacks. If students want to offer a fifth option I let them, but I insist that all students make some choice. When they begin to grumble, I say “You’re right. They all suck.” This both gets a laugh and also makes the point that there are no good options for coping with stigma. When explaining their choices, students invariably refer back to their values, personalities, and/or their life situations. I point out that, because values and circumstances vary from person to person, decisions about stigma management will also vary. After students return to their seats I begin my lecture by stating that every major professional mental health organization has come out officially as
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
102
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
gay-affirmative and I read a statement from at least one. This helps combat the view that I have no official sanction for my gay-affirmative views, which are seen as radical on this conservative Alabama campus. I cover use of gay-affirmative language, then give a brief overview of the typical coming out process. I explicitly come out as a lesbian at this point, using my own coming out process as an example. I believe that being open about my sexual orientation is an important part of the intervention, both because contact with LGBT people can have positive effects on attitudes (Case & B. Liddle, 2001), and also because being able to use personal experiences brings the lecture alive. Next I summarize the research on the causes of sexual orientation, stating that there is no credible evidence for social/parenting theories (e.g., any correlation between rejecting fathers and gay sons is more parsimoniously explained by fathers rejecting non-traditional sons than by sons somehow becoming gay because of a distant father), and that research shows some biological basis (e.g., identical twin research showing high concordance). Covering the biological evidence is important because belief that sexual orientation is a choice is correlated with negative attitudes (e.g., K. Liddle, 2000). After ten years of giving these presentations, I have come to believe that (at least at this university, where 44% of undergraduates believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and it should be taken literally, word for word; K. Liddle, 2000), no lecture on LGBT issues can hope to be effective without addressing certain Bible verses. In this lecture I referred to 1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh” and discussed how it was used for hundreds of years to justify slavery. I said I was sure that no one now sees any Bible quote as a justification for slavery, but that, taken out of context, certain Bible verses are very convenient for people who are looking to justify their behavior. I then mention various oft-cited passages from the Bible and explain how misinterpretation or mistranslation has led to the impression that they condemn gay and lesbian people. This content is taken from Helminiak (1994). I say repeatedly that my goal in talking about the Bible is to let them know that there is no conflict between being a good Christian and being a gay-affirmative teacher, counselor, social worker, etc. I refer interested (and skeptical) students to Helminiak’s book, which our university library purchased at my request. Reinterpreting Bible verses allows fundamentalist Christians to maintain their literal interpretation of the Bible while questioning the view that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. I come prepared to talk about additional topics: legal issues including discrimination and marriage, medical issues, parenting, community resources, etc. However, I encourage students to ask questions, and allow them to guide the remainder of my lecture. In my responses I try to be both informative and
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
103
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
personal–not only outlining the abstract issues but also saying how these issues have affected my own life and those of my friends. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION FACILITATED BY HETEROSEXUAL ALLY (NARRATOR: ANGELA STOWE) At the beginning of the discussion, students expressed very negative reactions to the LGBT lecture. Many said that they believed the presenter was trying to “shove her opinion down their throats” and trying to “force them to believe what she believed.” One student said she was so upset that after class she went home and called her mother and cried for an hour because she couldn’t believe that she “had to listen to that in a class.” Another said “I wasn’t even going to participate in the exercise. I didn’t want to get out of my seat. I couldn’t believe she was having us think about such things. I don’t agree with it and I didn’t want to participate in it.” Students also said they did not like how she challenged their religious beliefs when she discussed the Bible. Throughout this portion of the discussion, I let them vent their feelings without challenging them. I empathized (without agreeing with their assessments) by saying repeatedly that I understood that this was a difficult topic and was very upsetting to them. I would say that I could see they were shaken by it, or that they had very strong feelings. I refrained from challenging their opinions to allow for the discharge of the negative emotion. This restraint was difficult, but I knew that until they felt heard they would be unable to move on to a new understanding of the experience. After extensive venting of feelings, I moved the discussion on, asking what they found helpful about the presentation, and what new insights they had gained. Students admitted that the presentation challenged them to think about issues they had not considered before. I acted primarily as a facilitator, inviting other students to contribute their opinions when some view needed to be challenged. For example, when a student said, “if someone came to me and told me that she thought she was a lesbian, it is my job as a believer to witness to her–I would have to tell her that it is a sin,” I asked what other students thought. Two students, identifying as fellow Christians, said that telling someone that they are sinning will not help the person and might turn that individual away. When a student began monopolizing the discussion I would say something like, “So you believe that homosexuality is a sin because of your strong religious background. Who can respond in light of what Dr. Liddle shared last week?” Most of the time, I did not offer my personal opinions. However, occasionally I felt I had to intervene. At one point I reminded the class that they were
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
104
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
choosing human services professions where it would be their job to help the individuals who come to them in need. I stated, “As a human service professional, it is not your job, responsibility, or right to judge clients or patients. It is unethical to impose personal values on anyone. If you encounter clients with whom you have value conflicts which will impede your ability to serve them effectively, it is your responsibility to refer them to someone who can help them.” By the end of class, each student in the class had participated at least once, most students more than once. By the end of the discussion, some students seemed to show dramatic attitude change. The student who at first said he had almost refused to participate in the fantasy exercise stated, “I changed my mind. I’ve thought about it and if I had to do what she [the presenter] did, I wouldn’t do it any differently. I wouldn’t hold back anything. I would tell it how it is. I would do exactly what she did.” In response, another student, who had also initially disagreed with the presentation said, “Yeah, that really takes guts to talk about it the way she did.” Another student said, “I bet she wanted us to feel intense emotions. Maybe she was trying to provoke a response out of us.” Other students reported that the presentation helped them understand how the lives of LGBT people are affected by prejudice and discrimination. These comments came from the same students who, at the beginning of the discussion, had emphatically stated that they were offended by the presentation. Some students showed evidence of greater understanding of LGBT issues. For example, close to the end of the discussion, one student said that she had a gay friend who was not publicly out and she “now would understand if he decided to never come out.” Another student demonstrated new understanding by admitting that she had not thought about how saying something like “so tell me, are you dating anyone . . . what’s he like?” could send a message that she was not open to a lesbian relationship. A student who works in a daycare setting said in the past she had asked children about their “mom and dad.” She now realized that she needed to be aware of how she asked children about their parents. Students also said that they had not thought about the issues raised in the presentation such as health care, questions about marital status on forms, insurance, and marriage issues. Several students also reported how beneficial the presentation was in helping them understand the daily issues faced by LGBT people. The progression of the discussion from anger to discussion to learning and attitude change was exciting to watch, and convinced us of the efficacy of this team approach. It is possible that some positive student statements were the result of trying to please the instructor, who was clearly gay-affirmative. However, the fact that students felt free to express their homophobic attitudes early in the discussion suggests that the stated changes in their views were likely legitimate.
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
105
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This article discusses a team approach to changing students’ attitudes concerning LGBT people: the combination of a guest lecture by a lesbian professor and a follow-up discussion facilitated by a heterosexual instructor. Although no formal attitude assessment was conducted, student comments during the discussion seemed to indicate that this combination resulted in attitude change and greater understanding of LGBT issues among some students. We believe that scientific advances can emerge from serendipitous events. We hope that the anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of this team approach will result in more formal research assessing its impact. To be of greatest use to future educators such research should have a qualitative component (examining students’ beliefs about the impact of various components on their attitudes) as well as the more typical quantitative (pre-test/post-test) component. While quantitative studies can be useful in demonstrating effectiveness, without qualitative components determining which parts of the interventions were and were not effective, other presenters have little guidance in formulating their own programs. We have presented details of our program to aid those readers who might be interested in approximate replication of various parts. However, we have no illusions that the exact content of this presentation and discussion form some magical whole that is more effective than many other programs. We believe (based on student comments during the discussion) that the important aspects of this program were the presence of a lesbian presenter, a frank and engaging presentation that maintained student interest and challenged their existing views, and the opportunity to process their reactions with a trusted heterosexual facilitator. We hope that our positive experience with this formula will induce others to try this approach and to research its impact on student attitudes. REFERENCES Case, A. B., & Liddle, B. J. (2001, August). Factors integral to valuing diversity among majority group members. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Cotten-Huston, A. L., & Waite, B. M. (2000). Anti-homosexual attitudes in college students: Predictors and classroom interventions. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 117-133. Cramer, E. P. (1997). Effects of an educational unit about lesbian identity development and disclosure in a social work methods course. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 461-472. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
106
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Green, S., Dixon P., & Gold-Neil, V. (1993). The effects of a gay/lesbian panel discussion on college student attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and persons with AIDS (PWAs). Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 47-63. Helminiak, D. A. (1994). What the Bible really says about homosexuality. San Francisco: Alamo Square. Johnston, L., & Coolen, P. (1995). A dual processing approach to stereotype change. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 660-674. Lance, L. M. (1987). The effects of interaction with gay persons on attitudes toward homosexuality. Human Relations, 40, 329-336. Liddle, K. (2000). Close encounters: Visibility and acceptance of gays and lesbians. Unpublished master’s thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. McNaught, B. (1993). Gay issues in the workplace. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
APPENDIX: Fantasy Exercise (Adapted from a fantasy by Brian McNaught, 1993, pp. 18-23) “I’m going to walk you through a fantasy. It’ll take about 10 minutes. At the end I’ll ask you to make some decisions about how you would live your life. I’ll ask you to share those decisions and why you made them. (For this exercise we need to assume you are heterosexual. If you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, please pretend for the duration of this exercise that you are heterosexual.) . . . Relax. As I read, try to imagine what this situation would really feel like. “Tomorrow you wake up, stretch, look around, get your bearings, and realize that your entire life, as you now experience it, has been a dream. Your heart sinks as you remember that on your planet, nearly everyone is gay or lesbian. You’re still heterosexual, but everyone you know is gay or lesbian. Virtually all public figures are either gay or pretend to be. Your parents (both are male if you’re male; both are female if you’re female) are gay or lesbian, as are your siblings. All children on your planet are created through cloning, and only same-sex couples are allowed to reproduce. (If you find a clinic that will clone known heterosexuals, and you manage to have a baby, the government may take your child away if they find out you’re heterosexual. After all, how could anyone be a fit parent to a child of a different gender? Anyone in their right mind could see that’s not natural!) You’ve heard there are other heterosexual people, but they are despised. You don’t know any other heterosexuals yourself and don’t know where to find them. “You realize that the life you dreamed on earth was just wishful thinking–you just wanted to be yourself, and belong. So you created this happy
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
Becky J. Liddle and Angela M. Stowe
107
dream world where everyone else was like you. But in fact, you are alone. You are, sadly, a heterosexual, and (although you’ve tried to convince yourself otherwise) you know you cannot change that. “You know your parents assume you’re gay and would be terribly hurt and worried if they knew you were attracted to members of the other gender. Your religious leaders tell you attraction between different genders is unnatural and sick . . . yet you know it feels right to you. You only get romantic feelings toward members of the other sex, and the idea of making love to someone of your own gender sounds disgusting to you. “Up until now you’ve tried to fake it to please your parents and friends and society. You’ve tried dating others of your gender, and you like them OK, but you never fall in love. You’ve even tried to have sex, but the idea of sex with someone of your gender turns your stomach. You nearly always bail out before you get far. You did follow through and have gay sex once, and it was awful. Afterwards you felt dirty and shameful and shaky. “You went to a counselor and confessed you are attracted to members of the other gender. The counselor was supportive and told you that’s OK–that heterosexuality is natural for many people, but that life as a heterosexual is hard–you’ll face ostracism and discrimination in housing and work, and some occupations will be completely closed to you. You realize you have some difficult choices to make: “You could find someone of your own gender that you like OK, and marry, and hope they won’t want sex very often. But the idea of that kind of sex makes you queasy, and the idea of sharing your life with someone you’re not in love with makes you sad. “You could stay single forever. Resign yourself to having no one to be your companion through life, and to having no children, though you long for them. “You think perhaps you’d better live true to yourself as a heterosexual. But you know if you live openly, you will lose many of your friends and possibly be rejected by your family. You cannot be a teacher or minister or serve in the military. In most other fields you can find a job eventually, but many employers will not hire you if they know you’re heterosexual, and if you don’t tell them up front, and they find out later, you may lose your job. Most landlords won’t rent to known heterosexuals, so if you can’t afford to buy, it may be hard to find an apartment to rent. You may find your true love, but life will be hard. You’ll get threatening phone calls, you’ll be called perverts, your children (if you manage to have any) will be harassed at school, or may be taken away entirely. “You’re not sure you’re up for all that, so you think maybe you’ll live a heterosexual life, but secretly. That would be easier on your family and friends and career. But then you realize how lonely that would be. You’d be unlikely
Downloaded by [Brunel University London] at 02:11 24 October 2014
108
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
to find a lover–they wouldn’t know you were heterosexual and vice versa, and so you might never find each other. You could settle for going to sleazy heterosexual bars and picking up partners, but you’re unlikely to find your true love. You could go into any career you like, but you’d have to stay on guard–if you have a life partner or someone you’re dating, you cannot mention them at work. When people ask what you did over the weekend or on vacation you’ll have to be very vague, or lie. If you ever are discovered, your career may be ruined. Your parents will constantly ask if you’re dating, and will worry about you. Your friends will constantly try to fix you up with people–always people of your own gender of course. No one–not even your closest friends–will know you very well, because you have to screen everything you say, to keep up the pretense of being normal. “You’ve looked at all your options and none looks very appealing: Be open about your heterosexuality and face contempt and discrimination; be secret about your heterosexuality and be lonely and scared; or fake it to fit in: either by marrying someone of your own gender, or by staying single forever. These are tough choices. I’m very sorry you had the misfortune to be born heterosexual, but you were. Which option will you choose? “Please look at the four signs in the four corners of the room. These are your options. Choose one of these options and go to that corner of the room. Then I’d like you to share why you made the decision that you did.” [As I tape up the four signs I read them aloud:] [1] “I would stay closeted but would try to find a (hidden) community of heterosexuals, probably mostly in sleazy heterosexual bars. I would be lonely, but I could have a successful career, as long as I’m very careful.” [2] “I would stay closeted and marry a gay person of my gender and have gay sex and a family. This might not be fair to my partner (who will be hurt that I hate sex so much and will always love me more than I love them), but this is the only way I know to have a family and I really want kids.” [3] “I would come out as a heterosexual and work to end discrimination against people like me. I would be discriminated against in housing and work and church, and I may be rejected by my family, but I have to be true to myself.” [4] “I would stay closeted and stay single and celibate forever. I would give up my chance of ever having a spouse or children.”
