LIST OF TABLES
3.3 THE NEED FOR A TRANSFORMATIVE APPROACH TO EMBRACING LGBTI COMMUNITIES AT A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
39
3.3 THE NEED FOR A TRANSFORMATIVE APPROACH TO EMBRACING LGBTI
40
success of the LGBTI communities (Cornu, 2016; UNESCO, 2012). Stewart (2010) points out those LGBTI students are more likely to be victims of discrimination from their heterosexual counterparts.
Meland, Rydning, Lobben, Breidablik and Ekeland (2010) studied the internalised impacts of bullying on the student; they argue that bullying may lead to psychological breakdown and very low self-esteem even at university. LGBTI students have high rates of unreported bullying and harassment. Toomey and Russell (2013) indicate that up to 86 LGBTI communities have experienced some forms of bullying at school, as well as university. This might result in inadequate academic performance, truancy, and dropping out of school. In addition, Wang, Iannotti and Luk, (2011) assert that bullying results in an internalising of fear and insecurity amongst LGBTI communities resulting in absenteeism and later dropping out. Blondal and Sigrun (2009) state that perpetual insecurity experienced in LGBTI communities at a university from verbal abuse/harassment, can result in dropping out from university.
Literature shows that educational environments for LGBTIs are generally negative in nature (Swarr, 2012; Kotch, 2014). In a study carried out in New York (USA) by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (2010) results showed that most LGBTI scholars perceived that schools are unsafe because of their sexual orientation, and over one-third felt insecure because of their gender identity.
On coping strategies for bullied students, research has presented some impacts of stress and coping strategies (Skinner & Zimmer-Gombak, 2007; Zimmer-Gembeck, Lees & Skinner, 2011; Birditt, Antonucci & Tighe, 2012) have found that LGBTI communities are faced with challenges that reduce their ability to respond effectively to stressful situations, resulting in an increase of symptoms of psychosocial influences (Graber & Sontag, 2008). Birditt et al. (2012) by examining moderate effects to cope and the association between poverty and psychopathology, then found that student’s coping strategies serve as mediation to liberate the mind. Although, these findings, and other studies suggest that coping strategies during childhood and adolescence may be context-dependent and susceptible to direct influence from the stressor, (Erath
& Tu, 2014; Birditt et al., 2012) none of these studies have focused exclusively on social stressors that may be most salient to LGBTI communities based on stigmatization challenges at a university campus. Tolerance stand as a key to help
41
LGBTI communities’ students to develop confidence against bullying and improve on their life challenges among themselves.
3.3.3 Harassment of LGBTI communities at a university campus
Lozier and Beckman (2012) found that harassment and intimidation encountered by LGBTI individuals in schools creates an unsafe and unsupportive environment for academic and social achievement. A study was conducted by a research group at the University of Georgia (USA) in 2002, with LGBTI students at their university campus, and data was collected from 82 students who self-identified as LGBTI. The study found out that 90% of the participants reported to have heard anti-gay remarks or jokes while 75% of participants knew someone who had been verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation (Lozier & Beckman, 2012). The study findings revealed that almost half of the participants have experienced some form of prejudice on campus.
Swearer, Turner, Givens and Pollack (2008) assert that name-calling of students imposes psychological stress on students which can result in a lack of coping during classroom activities, a reduction to learning, low grades, substance use, and depression. Kapeleris and Paivio (2011, p. 626) concur that LGBTI students experience bullying, abuse, are picked on and are called names. Dare (2015), study found that heterosexual students point fingers at those in the LGBTI community and call them names such as ‘susi’, ‘tomboy’ and ‘faggot’ to make them feel uncomfortable among their friends at schools and universities.
Ashley-Smith (2013) says that the act of name-calling is a signal to others which leads to major stigmatisation of LGBTI communities. Dehart et al. (2011) state that the actual
‘coming out’ of individuals at a young age exposes them as more visible and they are subjected to labelling, teasing, name-calling and harassment from other students (Wang et al., 2011). Therefore, harassment experiences could cause internalization of problems for LGBTI communities which might, lead to depression, anxiety and substance abuse (Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010). All this can be catered for through a transformative approach for embracing LGBTI communities among heterosexual students against harrasment at a university campus.
42
3.3.4 Isolation of LGBTI communities at a university campus
Another issue experienced by LGBTI individuals is the social and emotional isolation on campus, which extends the risk of both physical and mental health problems (Butler, 2008). McCormack (2011) states that fewer LGBTI individuals make it to higher education due to the difficulties encountered at high school from their peers and hindered academic success, as they felt unsafe and unprotected. Robinson (2010) reveals that LGBTI learners find it difficult to concentrate in the class because of a preoccupation with negative events that have occurred and a fear of reoccurrence.
Research by Grossman et al. (2009) reveals that American LGBTI communities do not feel safe or have sense of belonging at their school environment due to powerlessness, exclusion and marginalization which leaves them no control over how they are being treated.
3.3.5 Labelling and stigmatisation of LGBTI communities
To understand the influence that stigmatization has on sexuality differentiation at a university campus, Erath and Tu (2014) opine that higher levels of stress may occur during challenges encountered and put LGBTI communities on a greater risk of emotional and behavioural problems. It has been well established in literature that how individuals cope with stress is often a strong indicator of psychosocial well-being.
Notably, Seelman et al. (2012) state that positive support and intervention for these LGBTI communities can be fuelled by the input of a university counsellor, lecturers and social workers towards attainment of excellence at the university. Koswic et al.
(2014) further suggested that promotion of gay-straight alliances be conducted at the universities, which will contribute to the improvement of social, emotional, physical and academic state of LGBTI communities at a university campus. Mavhandu-Mudzusi and Netshandam (2013) investigated the experience of LGBTI students at a rural institution in South Africa. Findings from the study recommend structured programmes on social behaviour, focus on advocacy for a change to educate and support should be implemented at the institution. It was suggested that this would help empower them in dealing with stigma and discrimination.
43
In terms of the labelling and stigmatisation LGBTI communities, Swearer et.al. (2008) explain that LGBTI students at the university may find it difficult to interact freely with their heterosexual peers due to fear of labelling and stereotyping. LGBTI individuals often hide their identity for fear of rejection (Romero-Canyas, Downey, Berenson, Ayduk & Kang, 2010). As stated, constant stigmatisation may marginalise LGBTI students at the university, thereby causing depression and emotional instability which might result in suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts (Fafchamps & Shilpi, 2008; Fine
& Spencer, 2009; Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; World Health Organization, 2012).
3.4 KEY ELEMENTS (TRUSTS) OF A TRANSFORMATIVE APPROACH TO