LIST OF TABLES
3.2 A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS INTO TRANSFORMATIVE APPROACHES FOR EMBRACING LGBTI COMMUNITIES AT A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
This section includes a situational description and analysis of a transformative approach to embtracing LGBTI communities at a university campus.
3.2.1 Hostile campus climate for LGBTI communities
Over the past three decades, scholars have increasingly recognized the importance of school climate (particularly violence and the threat of violence) on students who identify as part of LGBTI communities (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins- D’Alessandro, 2013). Kosciw, Palmer, Kull and Greytak (2013), in recent research on LGBTI students, have demonstrated the negative impacts of peer victimisation, which includes psychological problems and poorer academic results.
A study conducted by Tetreault, Fette, Meidlingerb and Hope (2013) at a tertiary institution in New York, United State of America (USA), investigated the perceptions of a campus environment in relation to sexual minorities. The study indicated that the university campus was a hostile climate for LGBTI communities as observed through
34
unfair and prejudiced treatment by their peers on their sexual orientation, gender identity and status.-
3.2.2 Tacit and subtle rejection of LGBTI communities at campus by peers and staffs
McCormack’s (2012) research has demonstrated that LGBTI students tend to have negative experiences at schools and universities, suffer social marginalisation and discrimination. Toomey and Russell (2013), found out that the majority of educators contributed to the situation by deliberately remaining silent on gender orientation differences and sexuality-related reports. LGBTI communities report that staffs and teachers often did not intervene, even when they witnessed harassment physically from heterosexual students (Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010; Pendragon, 2010). Such findings show the discrimination experienced by LGBTI students and the lack of support they receive at school and university. Reygan (2012), affirms that lack of support from educators is a further challenge for LGBTI communities as they struggle against bullying from peers.
Ringrose and Renold (2010) argue that staffs’ input have a significant influence on ensuring equal access of students to human rights. Remaining silent to LGBTI communities’ voices on abuse from peers might cause students to internalise their feelings and experience emotional problems. Lozier and Beckman (2012), argue that LGBTI communities who face discrimination by their peers, struggle to co-exist among them, as well as struggle to achieve their goals. Llera and Katsirebas (2010, p.29) confirm that LGBTI communities cohabit among other students at a university campus and engage in love relationships in order to facilitate their visibility at a university environment.
3.2.3 Lack of Parental/Family support for LGBTI communities
LGBTI communities often tend to lack supportive family, peers and teachers (Williams et al., 2005; Kapeleri & Paivio, 2011), which cause those who identify as LGBTI to undergo more victimisation and isolation within their families (Garofalo, Wolf, Wssow, Woods & Goodman, 1999). LGBTI communities often report that educators and
35
teachers most of the time did not intervene, even when they witnessed harassment physically from heterosexual students (Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010; Pendragon, 2010). This aparthy behaviour has indicated that parental and ethic of student- teachers relationships is denied meant that educators failed to play parental role as required at the university to challenge the wrong acts against students or victims.
Needham and Austin (2010), state that non-disclosure of sexuality arise home which occur from parental intolerance behaviour which could contribute to peer victimization against LGBTI communities. The parental indulgence against support to build confidence into LGBTI identified has negative impact to make them powerless to challenge the situations they find themselves in at the university campus. The researcher supports that family acceptance suggested by Ryan and Diaz (2009), support that parental role might be beneficial to embracing these LGBTI communities from home and lengthen to university campuses in line with Ryan, Huebner, Diaz and Sanchez (2009), support that family enlightenment helps the family not to reject their own children based on sexuality and gender orientation differences. Additionally, on the importance that educators serve as second parents as the schools and universities play second homes, Swank and Raiz (2010) assert that LGBTI communities’
unacceptance originates from early childhoold behaviours into non attachment to parental care and this disallow free relative interaction thus contribute to some educators failure to address cases of abuse reported by students on sexuality related issues. In contrast, Munson and Stelboum (2013), claim that parental responsibilities play a vital role to embracing LGBTI communities’ for their improvement on psychological and physiological development.
Despite several discourses on homosexuality and interventions, LGBTI communities at a university campus still experience challenges. According to the body of evidence, Unite Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (2012), define homophobic and transphobic bullying as a global problem phenomenon that violates on students’ rights and perhaps which might impede on educational achievement for LGBTI communities. (Cornu, 2016; UNESCO, 2012; Coleyshaw, 2010; Salmivalli, 2010). However, Cornu (2016) study compared that LGBTI student’s communities in United State and Israel, results found that homosexuality has encountered homophobic attacks from heterosexuals.
36
3.2.4 Difficulties of sexuality disclosure for LGBTI communities at a university campus
Wang and Eccles (2012), confirm that sexual orientation disclosure among LGBTI communities exposes them to assaults, verbal abuse and rape attempts from their peers at schools and university campuses. Tetreault et al. (2013) found that anti- LGBTI sentiments caused some students to pretend to be heterosexual and hide their sexual identity from other students and staff due to fear of stigmatisation and victimisation.
The difficulties of sexual orientation and gender conformity do not fully allow LGBTI communities to share equal position with heterosexuals based on their gender non- conformity could extend hostile environments that might result in internalizing problems. Haney (2008), affirms that rejection and isolation happen to LGBTI communities once disclosing their identity, and this deprived them of their full participation with heterosexual peers, and thus subjects them to consequent disengagement and loneliness which might occur, and to lead them to develop low self-esteem in their academics and fail to achieve as expected.
Pile (2010), disagrees that reactivity of human behaviors forces active responses on change to stimulus in the university environment. This supports people’s consciousness to adapt socially for interpersonal relationships. Zimmer-Gembeck, Lees and Skinner (2011), argue that emotional problems occur for LGBTI communities’ to achieve their relationships from the community. Diener and Biswas- Diener (2008), maintain that strong aspiration helps to accelerate differences that sexuality places on LGBTI communities against people’s perceptions on love and forgiveness for humanity. The researcher found with Wyandotte and Huh (2012) that equality serves to maximize ecological system theory against negativity based on gender identity and to corroborate a functional relationship amongst all students at a university campus and thus ensure social transformation. This endorses that consideration of campus democratic policy should encourage all students to build a team spirit whereby they can compete for a common goal and do work collaboratively so that everyone will be fully embraced.
Patrick, Knee, Canevello and Lonsbany (2007), contended that relationships importance represent an outright framework that beneficial to individual sexuality
37
disclosure among with heterosexual students at a University campus. These relationships are importance to provide assistance for LGBTI communities to develop a sense of self-worth at a university campus. Munson and Stelboum (2013) averted that relational self-worth ensure an individualistic self-concept that could be used to sustain positive attitudes and beliefs towards mutual interactions with others. In respect to sexual identities disclosure, studies conducted; Gay (2010), Munson and Stelboum (2013), have shown that exposure of gender identity/sexuality has implied someone’s preference to significant other on self-beliefs, change of one’s perception about self, compare to another who does not appreciate their significant other. Cislaghi (2013) disagrees that coming out set barriers to community beliefs on LGBTI communities but enjoins others to move beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrate rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.
3.2.5 Heterosexual dominance at university
Societal norms have positioned heterosexuals to be in a position of dominance that allows them to oppress other groups (Regan, 2009) – in this case LGBTI communities do not have a solid backing to stand on their feet as the university is a diverse population. Molden and Finkel (2010), support that submission occurs to different degrees; like how some employees may decide follow their boss’ orders without questioning, whereas others might disobey orders but later concede by pressurisation.
Unlike majority domination, Alatalo (2012) argues that heterosexual individuals do often oppress LGBTI communities.
The researcher concurs that heterosexual students see oppressing LGBTI communities as a way of showing that they are agents in terms of power relation and indicate that their rival LGBTIs were powerless and so base on perceived domination abuse privildges. However, Holt (2011), confirms that dominace power relation should be controlled in collaboration to the understanding of building a social trust to understand and respect individual at the university campus. This will ensure that LGBTI communities share their own perspectives with their classmates without fear or threat of intimidation by heterosexual dominance.
38
3.2.6 LGBTI communities’ engagement and disengagement at a university campus
Dehart, Pelham, Fiedorowicz, Carvallo & Gabriel (2011), suggest that students’
engagement helps to actualise academic success at university. Meanwhile, the love role shared among students emphasized with Goldberg (2014) that family belongingness actualizes their interpersonal relationships while familiar with individual differences from heterosexual peers. Bajaj (2014) states that provision of educational rights be implemented and monitored in accordance to inclusivity principles as contained in DoE (2008), to cater for the initial difficulties, and that all students might enjoy support to overcome these difficulties. Dehart et al. (2011), promoted sense belongings for LGBTI communities at a university campus in study especially at the face of adversity and discrimination to improve self-dependency.This self-dependency propels diversity among students.
Göransson and Nilholm (2014) claim that way to develop a self-confidence through communicating experiences which are similar to others’ belongingness; expressions like, you belong here, I know you can succeed.” As such, these inspirational tips might boost morale standards to motivate and believe that each LGBTI community can win over the challenges of life. Chopik, Edelstein and Fraley (2013) suggest that negative views to LGBTI students leads to a struggle to be visible or to participate fully at a university. Unconscious disengagement of LGBTI students may result in a lack of concentration and depression, and a failure to achieve their life goals. Fisher, Poirier and Blau (2012), concurred that discrimination has a negative influence on LGBTI communities which might create mental stress, which will not allow them to survive at a university campus. Additionally, emotional problems which emanate from disengagement such as severe mental stress can pose a threat to human health.
39
3.3 THE NEED FOR A TRANSFORMATIVE APPROACH TO EMBRACING LGBTI