Khảo sát Giới tính trong Tuyển sinh Đại học: Tác động của Việc Yêu cầu Tiết lộ Xu hướng Tình dục

SEXUALITY DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS: IMPLICATIONS OF ASKING APPLICANTS TO REVEAL THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION By F. Lee Casson Valerie Rutledge Ted Miller Dean of the College of Health, Education UC Foundation Professor and Professional Studies (Committee Member) (Chair) Vicki Petzko Laura Dubek UC Foundation Professor Professor, Department of English (Committee Member) Middle Tennessee State University (Committee Member) i SEXUALITY DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS: IMPLICATIONS OF ASKING APPLICANTS TO REVEAL THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION By F. Lee Casson A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctorate in Education The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee May 2014 ii Copyright © 2014 By F. Lee Casson All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Many universities and colleges are considering if potential students should disclose their sexual orientation when filling out an application for admission.

This recent trend, however, has generated a debate among administrators who work directly with LGBT students: What, they wonder, are the various positive and negative implications of quantifying sexual orientation? To address this question, this study utilized a descriptive design and looked at a national LGBT organization of educators, a non-generalizable population of approximately 700 members, in order to identify, categorize, exemplify, and describe the complex issues surrounding a sexual- orientation demographic. The methodology included a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures that were delivered through a seventeen-item, on-line questionnaire. Quantitative responses were analyzed with frequency distributions, percent distributions, disaggregation, and cross tabulations. Qualitative responses relied upon coded assessment derived from grounded theory.

Descriptive statistics, for instance, showed that 90% of respondents were aware of the trend and that 41% worked at an institution that had considered adding to its application a demographic for sexual orientation. Descriptive statistics also indicated that respondents were divided among their levels of support for this trend at their own institutions and within academe in general. Coded assessment of the qualitative responses revealed numerous beneficial and detrimental concerns associated with a sexual-orientation demographic. iv DEDICATION To Julius, whenever and wherever I find you.

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A dissertation is essentially a collective effort, and I must formally acknowledge the following individuals for their wisdom, advice, kindness, friendship, and support. First to Patricia Baines: You know that you, like, totally rock because you helped with all the bits and pieces. Secondly to my UTC friends, including my committee members (for obvious reasons), other faculty members (especially Dr. Beth Crawford for her assistance with EndNote), and fellow doctoral students (especially Jody Love Hancock and Lindy Blazek): I struggled, screamed, and stammered, yet you consistently offered guidance and encouragement—and most of all patience and compassion.

Thirdly to my other wonderful, dear friends, especially to Kathleen Bryan Herron (who is, of course, pretty and smart!), Wendy Headrick, Greg Gardner, Shan Overton, and Ramona Burton: You are my touchstones, those very individuals to whom I turn when life gets nasty—and even when it is blissful and good. Also to Mom, Dad, and Nancy: They are not without notice, your love, friendship, and support—emotional and, of course, financial. Fourthly to Dr. Laura Dubek: Without you, I reason, this dissertation would never have happened; you encouraged me to teach gay and lesbian literature, and from this endeavor came the genesis for this important study.

And lastly to Dr. Verbie Prevost: You illustrated the power of extraordinary pedagogy, a skill that continues to influence my own teaching and scholarship, even twenty years after a master’s degree in English literature. And there is a final note of gratitude, one given to life’s guilty little pleasures—to those very things that magically and momentarily remove us from the humdrum. What would I have vi done without the Tour de France, Downton Abbey, Torchwood, PBS, and scores of books—many literary and scholarly, some commercial—that opened windows into the human condition and foreign, long-ago worlds? Ah, to live vicariously—even enviously! Perhaps that is the ultimate panacea to the day-to-day grind and, yes, to the interminable dissertation.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. vi LIST OF TABLES. xi LIST OF FIGURES. xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

xiv LIST OF SYMBOLS. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .1 Background to the Problem .6 Statement of the Problem .8 Rationale of the Study.10 Significance of the Study .17 Organization of the Study .24 Homophobia and Academe, 1920s-1950s .24 The Gay-and-Lesbian Collegiate Experience Reflected Through Representative Literature and Biography, 1950s-1960s .28 Campus Unrest and the 1960s.33 The Stonewall Legacy and the Modern LGBT Movement .35 viii Higher Education and the LGBT Movement Forge a New Relationship, 1970s-2000s .38 Current Trends Involving LGBT Students .40 Legal Considerations for Working with LGBT Students .42 Ethical Matters: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act .55 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .56 Overview of the Research Design.71 Incentives for Participation .72 Monitoring the Study .73 Analysis of Data .79 Quantitative Research Questions and Results.82 Qualitative Research Questions and Results.85 Demographics of the Organization and Quantifying Sexual Orientation .100 Summary of Results in Relation to the Nine Research Questions. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .119 Summary of the Results .119 Discussion of the Results .122 Interpretation of the Findings.124 Relationship of the Current Study to Previous Literature .129 Recommendations for LGBT Researchers and Administrators.132 Suggestions for Additional Research .169 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Research Questions and Their Relationship to the Questionnaire.64 Table 2: Social Media Postings to Solicit Participation within the Study .70 Table 3: Baruch and Holtom’s (2008) Recommendations for Response Rate Analysis and Reporting .72 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Questions 9, 10, 11, and 12: Respondents’ Institutional Demographics .80 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17: Respondents’ Demographics .81 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Question’s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7: Respondents’ Consideration of Self-Reporting Sexual Orientation During the Admissions Process .84 Table 7: Categorization of Responses to Question 4: What is the primary reason that you would (not) support a policy that encourages potential students to reveal their sexual orientation in an application for admission to your institution? .88 Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Question 4: What is the primary reason that you would (not) support a policy that encourages potential students to reveal their sexual orientation in an application for admission to your institution? .90 Table 9: Categorization of Responses to Question 6: What is the primary reason that you would (not) support a policy that encourages potential students to reveal their sexual orientation in an application within academe in general? .92 Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Question 6: What is the primary reason that you would (not) support a policy that encourages potential students to reveal their sexual orientation in an application for admission within academe in general?.96 Table 11: Categorization of Responses to Question 8: Why would your institution (not) support a policy that encourages potential students to reveal their sexual orientation in an application for admission? .98 xi Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Question 8: Why would your institution (not) support a policy that encourages potential students to reveal their sexual orientation in an application for admission? .100 Table 13: Cross Tabulations for Question 1 and Questions 9 through 12 .102 Table 14: Cross Tabulations for Question 1 and Questions 13 through 17 .103 Table 15: Cross Tabulations for Question 2 and Questions 9 through 12 .105 Table 16: Cross Tabulations for Question 2 and Questions 13 through 17 .106 Table 17: Cross Tabulations for Question 3 and Questions 9 through 12 .108 Table 18: Cross Tabulations for Question 3 and Questions 13 through 17 .109 Table 19: Cross Tabulations for Question 5 and Questions 9 through 12 .111 Table 20: Cross Tabulations for Question 5 and Questions 13 through 17 .112 Table 21: Cross Tabulations for Question 7 and Questions 9 through 12 .114 Table 22: Cross Tabulations for Question 7 and Questions 13 through 17 .115 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Identifying LGBT Applicants: Elmhurst College and the University of Iowa .123 xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIDS, Acquired Immunodeficiency Virus APA, American Psychological Association DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act ERIC, Education Resources Information Center FERPA, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus IRB, Institutional Review Board LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (also GLBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, and any combination thereof) Q, Question (for instance Q1 or Q2, in reference to this study’s questionnaire) RR, Response Rate SOGI, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity xiv LIST OF SYMBOLS N, population n, sub-population M, mean SD, standard deviation χ2, chi square df, degrees of freedom p, probability ≈, approximately equal to ≤, less than or equal to xv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY This chapter provides an overview of a study that explored the implications of asking students to reveal their sexual orientation within a college application. Eleven sections guide this chapter: an introduction of the recent trend started at Elmhurst College, a brief background of the trend, the statement of this study’s central research problem, the rationale of the study, the significance of the study, the methodology, research questions, delimitations, limitations, terminology, and the organization of the study.

Introduction It was a deceptively simple question, one first posed by the admissions office at Elmhurst College, a private school in suburban Chicago affiliated with the United Church of Christ, to potential students, prior to the Fall 2011 semester: “Would you consider yourself a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community?” ("Elmhurst College: Application for admission," 2012, p. This single question, however, ignited a sociopolitical firestorm that immediately swept the country. On various listservs and in the pages of The Chronicle of Higher Education, administrators and educators considered the weighty implications of this demographical conundrum: Might other students, they wondered, simply check “yes” to be considered for minority scholarships? In publications such as The Chicago Tribune, The Huffington Post, and The National Review, journalists and media pundits fanned the flames, 1 dispensing scores of articles that portrayed both positive and negative editorial slants. And on AMERICAblog and The New York Times online, gay-rights advocates and eager students joined the conversation, praising Elmhurst’s step toward promoting equality (e.

The collective response was comprehensive and swift. A content analysis of these various articles indicated that support for Elmhurst was overwhelmingly favorable. The college’s president, S. Alan Ray, led the charge during an interview with CNN: We took this step in an effort to better serve each of our students as a unique person [and.

it] also allows us to live out our commitments to cultural diversity, social justice, and mutual respect among all persons, and the dignity of every individual. These are among the core values of this institution. They provide the foundation for all of our academic, student, and community programs. 6) As with every debatable topic, a rebuttal is inevitable, and The National Review’s Harden (2011) attacked the college through the magazine’s column entitled “Phi Beta Cons: The Right Takes on Higher Education”: I guess you could say that sex pays at Elmhurst College—at least, certain kinds of sex.

I wonder, will Elmhurst administrators demand proof of sexual orientation before handing out these valuable scholarships? If so, what sort of proof will students be asked to give? In an era of student-loan sugar daddies, students these days are doing all sort of things to pay for college. In keeping with the spirit of the times, heterosexual Elmhurst students facing potentially crushing loan burdens may be compelled to consider ‘broader’ sexual horizons. 3-5) Along with the conservative media, even academe itself cast a critical eye—and The Columbia Chronicle, a publication of Columbia College (another private school in Chicago), offered a cautionary editorial: “As the first college to take this step, Elmhurst is headed in the right direction, but the administration should keep in mind that well-intentioned ideas can be just a step away from very misguided practices” ("Elmhurst College asks applicants for sexual orientation," 2011, para.