Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Student Services

Research Results

Introduction
During Spring Semester 1998, an ethnographic evaluation of the LGBTSS Safe Zone project was undertaken. As part of this evaluation, 42 individuals were interviewed by one of three members of the evaluation team. Interviews were conducted with individuals involved in the development of the Safe Zone project, members of the Iowa State LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, and heterosexual individuals who identified themselves as allies by displaying Safe Zone stickers. The purpose of the interviews was to assess the impact that the Safe Zone project was having on the Iowa State campus. Preliminary analysis of the interview data was completed during the summer of 1998. This report includes the major themes that were evident in the data. The responses were examined to identify common perceptions of all respondents as well as differences in perceptions among members of specific groups, including lesbian and bisexual women students, gay and bisexual male students, LGBT faculty and staff, heterosexual students, heterosexual male faculty and staff, heterosexual female faculty and staff. This preliminary report is being shared with the 19 interviewees who volunteered to review it as well as with LGBTSS staff. Their feedback and comments will be incorporated into the final report.

Goals
The goals for the Safe Zone project as stated by the individuals who were responsible for its development included the following: (1) increased visibility for LGBT people and concerns on campus, (2) increased support for LGBT people, and (3) increased awareness of the issues facing LGBT people. Individuals interviewed saw the purpose of the project being to provide safe places for LGBT people and to demonstrate support for LGBT issues and people. LGBT interviewees were most likely to mention increased visibility as a goal. LGBT faculty also identified networking as a goal. Heterosexual female faculty and staff were most likely to mention raising awareness as a goal of the project.

Thus it seems that project coordinators were successful in conveying the purpose of the project to LGBT persons and allies. While all groups saw increased support as an important goal, LGBT people also focused on increased visibility and opportunities to network, while heterosexual allies saw the potential to increase awareness of LGBT issues. These different emphases seem reasonable given the issues specific to each group. Lack of visibility would be much more of an issue for LGBT folks while lack of awareness would be more apparent to allies.

Sources of Information About the Project
The LGBTSS Office attempted to widely publicize the project. Immediately after the Thanksgiving Break, informational brochures were sent via campus mail to all faculty and staff at Iowa State. In addition, at the Coming Out Week Rally, Houston Dougharty, the Associate Dean of Students, announced the project to those in attendance and held up a poster displaying an enlarged version of the Safe Zone sticker. The project was announced on QUOC, the listserv maintained by the LGBTA Alliance, and several articles about the project appeared in the Iowa State Daily and Inside Iowa State, the faculty-staff newspaper. LGBTSS staff were also invited to talk about the project to numerous classes, staff groups, and student organizations. In targeting faculty and staff with intensive publicity about the project, rather than students, the LGBTSS staff focused its efforts on insuring that university employees, rather than students, were viewed as responsible for providing support for LGBT individuals on campus.

To determine the effectiveness of these approaches, interviewees were asked how they found out about the Safe Zone project. Faculty and staff were most likely to mention receiving the mailing from LGBTSS while students were most likely to identify the rally as their source of information. Other sources of information mentioned included newspapers, personal contacts, educational programs, student organizations, and seeing stickers posted. Sources of information for students varied a great deal and were somewhat more haphazard. This finding seems reasonable given that faculty and staff were systematically targeted with a mailing while no such systematic approach was used to reach students.

Motivation for Posting Stickers
People have many reasons for getting involved with initiatives such as the Safe Zone project. While LGBT people may have "something to gain," they also take a risk when they post a Safe Zone sticker. By contrast, people may question the motives of non-LGBT individuals for becoming supporters of a cause not their own. To determine why people chose to actively identify themselves as a part of this project, we asked interviewees if they had posted stickers and if so, why.

Individuals in all groups noted that a major motivation for their posting a sticker was to indicate support for LGBT individuals and to show their support for the project, which they felt was important to the campus. Many faculty and staff, as well as some graduate students who aspired to become faculty, felt that it was a professional responsibility of a faculty or staff member to demonstrate support for all students with whom they worked. LGBT individuals felt that they should take an active role in addressing issues by which they were personally affected. LGBT faculty and staff also felt that displaying a sticker was a way to affirm themselves. Interestingly, gay male students noted that one reason they posted a sticker was to test out other people's reactions. It was a way of determining who was supportive and who was not. Heterosexual allies frequently mentioned that they had become aware of LGBT issues and concerns as a result of having an LGBT family member, friend, or colleague. They posted stickers to encourage others to become allies. In turn, many heterosexual interviewees offered that they were encouraged to post a sticker when they saw that other individuals whom they respected had posted a sticker on their doors.

Thus, motivation to post stickers ranged from philosophical to very personal. Some individuals saw it as "the right thing to do." The project provided a way for them to live out their values. Others found displaying a sticker to be personally fulfilling and affirming. It was a way to demonstrate pride in who they were and/or what they stood for. And for some gay students, the decision to post a sticker was pragmatic; it provided a way to find out whom they could count on for support.

Impressions of the Sticker The Safe Zone sticker was designed by the LGBTSS Coordinator. Input and approval was obtained from the Advisory Committee that submitted the P&S proposal that funded the project. The sticker was designed to be easily recognized by LGBT persons yet somewhat subtle. The sticker includes a representation of the pink triangle, a symbol originally used in Nazi Germany to identify gay men. This symbol has been "taken back" by LGBT people to demonstrate LGBT pride. The words, "Safe Zone," appear around the triangle. The words "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," or "transgender" do not appear on the sticker. The evaluation team was interested in determining the impressions interviewees had of the sticker and whether they were aware of the meaning of the sticker.

Uniformly, individuals we interviewed found the sticker attractive and felt that it sent a clear message of support for LGBT people. Interviewees felt that the meaning of the sticker was very clear. One gay male student had trouble with using a Holocaust symbol and would have preferred a less emotion-laden symbol such as a rainbow flag. One lesbian student wished that a black triangle had been included as well as a pink one. (A black triangle was used in Nazi Germany to identify lesbians.) Most individuals we interviewed knew that the pink triangle was a symbol of pride in the LGBT community. But many individuals, particularly heterosexuals, were unaware of the historical significance of the symbol.

The individuals we interviewed perceived the design of the sticker very positively. It was perceived as fulfilling the purpose for which it was intended to indicate support and acceptance of LGBT people. Many individuals were unaware of the historical significance of the sticker, however. Perhaps information could be provided along with the sticker when it is sent out by LGBTSS.

Process for Obtaining the Sticker
The process for obtaining a sticker was quite simple; an individual merely requested a sticker from LGBTSS. Brochures mailed to all faculty and staff on campus indicated that anyone wanting a sticker could email or call the LGBTSS office and the sticker would be sent to them through campus mail. Stickers were also available from the LGBTA Alliance office in the Memorial Union.

No one we talked to had any problem obtaining a sticker. They felt that the use of email to request a sticker worked very well and that they received their stickers promptly. Students, who did not receive a mailing, were most likely to obtain their stickers through personal contacts with LGBTSS staff or from the Alliance office. Almost everyone liked they idea of people having to request a sticker (as opposed to mailing stickers to everyone on the mailing list). Positive comments were made about the lack of pressure to post stickers and the privacy of the procedures for obtaining stickers. Some individuals felt that training should be required before stickers were given out to insure that individuals knew what it meant to be an ally to LGBT people and had appropriate knowledge, awareness, and skills to be helpful. This position was taken most frequently by LGBT students, counseling center and student affairs staff. A number of interviewees were just as adamant that it would be an affront to assume that people needed training and that it was important to demonstrate faith in people's good intentions.

The process for obtaining stickers was perceived to be quick, easy, and effective. Indeed, the end result of distributing over 1800 stickers attests to its efficiency and effectiveness. Students had to make more of an effort to obtain stickers than did faculty and staff who were mailed an informational brochure and could request their sticker via email. A more active approach to reach students may be warranted. Philosophical differences exist regarding the necessity for training people to be Safe Zones. Those for whom visibility is a major goal of the project argue that it is important to have large numbers of stickers on campus to create a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. They believe that the vast majority of people are honorable and will live up to the commitment they make to provide support to LGBT people. Others argue that safety and security are more important than seeing large numbers of stickers. They believe that training is necessary to identify those that are truly committed and not just posting a sticker to be "politically correct" or worse yet, because they wish to "convert" LGBT people. There is no "right" answer to this debate but our data does reveal that interviewees could cite only a few, mostly heresy, instances of someone posting a sticker for inappropriate reasons. No instances were reported of an LGBT individual being uncomfortable with an interaction with anyone who had a sticker posted. A training session on how to be an ally to LGBT people was conducted by a member of the Counseling Center staff during the spring semester. Individuals were very pleased with this program and noted that attendance was good. Offering such programs regularly may help to offset some of the concerns raised about the need for training.

Issues in Posting Stickers
Several issues related to the actual posting of stickers came up in the interviews. These are worthy of consideration by LGBTSS as this project continues. First, many students commented that they would like to see more stickers posted in the residence halls. For students, the residence halls can feel very unsafe. They reported a number of homophobic acts and instances of harassment. Often the students we talked to were the only persons on their floors to have a sticker posted and, as a result, they felt quite vulnerable. In contrast, in the few cases were many stickers were posted on a floor, the environment was transformed into a place of safety and support. We recommend that more attention be given to publicizing the project to students living in the residence halls and to providing training and educational programs on being an ally to LGBT students.

Individuals who shared space with others, such as support staff people in central offices, or faculty in two-person offices, reported conflicts and concerns over posting stickers. They wanted to indicate their support by posting a sticker but often did not know what the attitudes of their colleagues were. These issues were sometimes openly negotiated; sometimes ignored with the person posting the sticker without consulting with their colleague, and sometimes dealt with by posting the sticker on a computer or nameplate that clearly indicated who the supportive person was. Several individuals suggested that people sharing space need to be aware of issues that might come up with colleagues and need more information on how to negotiate them.

Several students who lived off campus and did not have offices on campus mentioned that they had no space to post a sticker. They suggested that moveable Safe Zones are needed, in the form of buttons or T-shirts.

Some interviewees raised concerns about the permanency of the adhesive used on the stickers. Especially in residence halls, where students move frequently, taking stickers off the doors becomes problematic. Staff and faculty who leave the university or who change positions also may leave stickers up on their doors. The stickers may or may not reflect the feelings of the new occupant of the office.

Staff who worked in the Counseling Center mentioned that they were unable to post stickers directly on their doors because of fire code regulations. No other person mentioned this problem but it might be worth checking these regulations to determine if this concern is warranted.

The GSB Debate
A major event in the history of the Safe Zone project was what we have labeled "the GSB debate." To show their support for the Safe Zone project (and after one of their Senators came out to them), the President and Vice President of the Government of the Student Body issued a proclamation declaring the GSB Office a Safe Zone. These officers felt that since they work with the entire student body, that they should be there for everybody and that perhaps through their actions that others would be encouraged to post safe zone stickers and be supportive of the LGBT community as well. They did not think to clear their action with others who used the office, however. Several senators perceived that they were being told how to think and were quite irate at the officers' actions. In addition, LGBT students were upset that the posting of the sticker when some senators were not supportive could send the wrong message to LGBT students who could potentially be hurt as a result. A major debate took place on the floor of GSB as well as in the Iowa State Daily. As a result of this discussion, the officers rescinded their proclamation. Later, however, GSB did pass a resolution in support of the Safe Zone project. In addition, similar resolutions were passed by the Graduate Student Senate and the Inter-Residence Hall Association.

The GSB issue was significant in drawing attention to the Safe Zone project and in raising awareness of the issues and responsibilities involved in posting a sticker. Many of our interviewees mentioned "the debate" as helping to address misunderstandings and to further educational efforts around LGBT issues generally. The GSB president noted that several senators really grew as a result of the experience and that, at the very least, people became more willing to listen and learn. The debate was viewed as something that "got a lot of people thinking."

Effects of the Project on Campus -- Positive Individuals were asked what effect they thought the Safe Zone project had had on campus and more specifically, what they saw as the benefits and drawbacks of the project. Interestingly, most heterosexual interviewees had little idea of what the impact of the project was. Because they had had little direct contact with LGBT people around this subject, they felt uninformed. The comments of individuals, LGBT and heterosexual, who did have opinions were grouped into those indicating positive effects and those indicating negative effects.

Individuals from all constituencies saw the project as having increased the visibility of LGBT people and issues; they felt that people were more aware of LGBT concerns generally and specific to the ISU campus. They also felt that support for LGBT people had increased and that there was more discussion and communication about LGBT concerns. LGBT students felt that the project allowed LGBT students and staff to identify safe people and places and contributed to the climate feeling safer in general. LGBT faculty and staff noted that the project had led to increased networking and had helped LGBT people feel more secure and affirmed. Faculty and staff, both LGBT and heterosexual, felt that the project was helping to change the university's conservative image. They saw it as part of a constellation of positive changes related to LGBT issues on campus. They also felt that the project would provide the impetus for other needed changes on campus. Heterosexual students were less sure that changes had occurred on campus as a result of the project, although some heterosexual male students felt that the project was contributing to changes in attitudes on campus. LGBTSS staff, as well as gay male students, noted that the project had significantly contributed to increased educational opportunities on campus. In general, LGBT faculty, staff, and students who had been on campus for a longer period of time were more likely than newer employees and students to see changes on campus after the initiation of the Safe Zone project and, as a result, to value the project more.

The information provided by our interviewees strongly supports the success of the Safe Zone project in meeting its goals of increased visibility, support, and awareness for LGBT people and issues. The success of the project was most apparent to those individuals most affected by it LGBT faculty, staff, and students. Individuals who had been part of the ISU community for many years saw major differences in the climate and noted many instances of dramatic changes in their perceptions and feelings about the campus. Heterosexual allies were less of aware of the impact of the project on campus. Efforts should be made to publicize the success of the project.

Effects of the Project on Campus -- Negative
Very few individuals reported any specific negative effects. Members of all groups interviewed discussed the potential for retaliation against those who posted stickers, including possible defacement of stickers and harassment. Several individuals (faculty, staff, and students) did report that their stickers had been ripped or defaced and a few students had experienced some harassing comments in their residence halls because they had posted a Safe Zone sticker. Interviewees were concerned about the impact that these negative acts might have on the campus. Interviewees also noted the potential for stickers to be posted for inappropriate reasons, although very few individuals knew of actual cases where this had occurred. Some people mentioned that conflict had resulted from shared space issues, where one person in an office or area was supportive and another wasn't. Another concern was the potential for a false sense of security to develop because so many stickers were visible. A few people worried that the high visibility of the project would be threatening to individuals who were closeted and did not want attention called to their identities. Finally, a number of interviewees felt that the biggest negative effect was that the project had not had a major impact on campus.

Interviewees had a much harder time identifying drawbacks of the project than they did benefits. Their comments seemed to suggest that they were "reaching" for answers. Individuals with less direct contact with the project wondered if it had had any effect and others raised potential issues rather than specific problems they had noticed.

Personal Effects of the Project
To get a sense of specific effects the Safe Zone project was having on people's lives, each interviewees were asked to discuss ways that they had been personally affected by the project. Individuals consistently mentioned that the project had led to more honest interactions and communication. A number of very moving stories were provided to support this theme. LGBT folks felt personally reassured by the presence of the stickers on campus. LGBT faculty and staff reported that their networking opportunities had increased, both personally and professionally. They also noted that in several instances their opinions of other people had changed based on whether or not someone had posted a sticker. Several gay male students who were very active in the LGBT community on campus felt that the project had validated their efforts to improve the environment for LGBT persons. However, on the negative side, other LGBT students reported being harassed by male students who saw their sticker or having their stickers defaced in the residence halls.

Heterosexual respondents found that posting a Safe Zone sticker provided incentive to further educate themselves about LGBT issues. They reported that their awareness levels increased around the issues and concerns of LGBT people. For example, one African American respondent reported that she experienced some personal conflict between her religious beliefs and her belief in the right of all people to be treated fairly and supportively. She also experienced teasing from her African American friends for her involvement in the project. These conflicts strengthened her resolve to further educate herself about these issues. Heterosexual allies also reported that they felt good about being able to help in some way by posting the sticker. They saw participating in the project as an opportunity to make a public statement about their values and beliefs. One new employee of the university noted that seeing the Safe Zone stickers when she interviewed had positively influenced her decision to accept the position at ISU because she felt that her ideas and viewpoints would be supported.

Overall, the personal experiences of interviewees with the Safe Zone project were very positive. LGBT people reported some harassment because of their stickers but also stressed that seeing the stickers increased their comfort levels and led to positive interactions with others. Heterosexual supporters reported significant personal involvement in educating themselves and in "living out" the goals that the stickers were designed to achieve.

Interactions/Reactions of Others To get a sense of the direct effects the project was having on interactions, interviewees were asked if they had had any conversations about the project and what reactions other people had to seeing a posted sticker. Overwhelmingly, people reported a lack of direct interaction. Having a sticker on an office or residence hall door did not appear to led to individuals opening up to the person who had the sticker nor did LGBT students report initiating conversations about their sexual orientation because they saw a sticker posted. A number of people reported that positive comments had been made to them about the project. Many people noted that nothing negative had been said to them about having a sticker posted on their door. A few individuals suggested that conversations about their stickers had provided educational opportunities about LGBT issues in general. A few gay male students as well as an African American heterosexual student mentioned that they knew that negative remarks were being made behind their back about their support of the project and some staff reported conflicts resulting from posting stickers in shared space. LGBT faculty indicated that after posting Safe Zone stickers, some students had asked them for resource material related to LGBT issues in their fields. And it is important to note that use of the services and programs of LGBTSS increased significantly after the initiation of the Safe Zone project.

The lack of direct contacts by LGBT students with allies posting stickers should not be taken as a major concern or as a failure of the project. Overwhelmingly, students and LGBT staff indicated that just knowing that an individual had a sticker posted made them feel more comfortable with that person. Indeed, one of the project evaluators indicated that when registering for classes he had checked the door of each of his potential professors to determine if those persons had stickers posted. Sexual orientation is a highly personal topic and not likely to come up in general conversation even when someone knows that an individual is supportive. But seeing a sticker posted does create a higher level of comfort with regard to issues that can be addressed in papers, classroom discussions, etc. Additionally, several students indicated that it was nice to know that they could ask for advice or assistance if they needed to in the future. And the lack of negative reactions in and of themselves is positive. The lack of reactions experienced by our interviewees suggests that individuals need not be too concerned about potentially driving students away who might not be supportive of LGBT issues.

Personal Reactions Interviewees were asked about their personal reactions to the project. Overwhelmingly, interviewees praised the professional manner in which the project was implemented. They attributed its success to the careful planning that went into the project. Faculty and staff expressed surprise at the success of the project, given previous failures related to LGBT issues and programs and the conservative nature of the campus and university administration. Several gay male student activists did note that while they felt good about the project, they were concerned that it didn't go far enough.

The sense one gets reading the interview transcripts is one of surprise, pleasure, and some apprehension. Interviewees, particularly those who had been at Iowa State for more than a year or two, were amazed that the project was so successful when the history of the university's response to LGBT issues and people was so minimal. They attributed this success to the masterful manner in which the proposal was written and the careful attention to planning that preceded the implementation of the project. Yet, there was an underlying feeling that this positive response to the project was "window dressing" that administrators to point to to indicate that they were addressing LGBT issues and that more significant underlying issues facing this community would continue to be ignored.

Perceptions of LGBT Reactions
Not only did we want to get a sense of how people personally viewed the project, we also were concerned about what they thought the responses of others were. To get a sense of perceptions of reactions, we asked interviewees two questions: what did they think were the reactions of LGBT people to the Safe Zone project, and what did they think were the reactions of heterosexuals. Responses to both of these questions varied depending on the interviewer's own identity.

Heterosexual respondents indicated that they did not really know what the reactions of LGBT people were to the Safe Zone project because they had had very little direct contact with LGBT persons. They assumed that LGBT reactions were positive but wondered if LGBT people might not be a little bit skeptical of the project and want to see more attention paid to LGBT issues.

LGBT people we interviewed suggested that other LGBT people were positive about the project but that some people had concerns about the motivations behind some individuals posting stickers. They indicated that some LGBT activists thought that the project did not go far enough while some closeted individuals were concerned about the visibility associated with the project. LGBT faculty noted that other LGBT people were very surprised that the project had been successful. These perceptions seems to mirror fairly accurately what we actually heard from our interviewees about the effects of the project and how they personally felt about it. Overall, the comments suggested that the project was perceived very positively but that there was concern that efforts might stop with the posting of Safe Zone stickers when much more work was left to do.

Perceptions of Heterosexual Reactions
Interviewees from all groups indicated that the reactions of heterosexuals to the Safe Zone project were varied, ranging from quite positive to very negative. Many individuals were perceived to be supportive of the project while others were perceived to be "not negative." Two comments were very prevalent: (1) that many heterosexuals saw the project as evidence of "special privilege" for LGBT people (e.g., that no other group warranted a sticker indicating support of their issues); and (2) that the project had succeeded in raising people's level of awareness and had forced them to take a stand, one way or another, with regard to their support for LGBT people. Interviewees also noted that many heterosexuals felt threatened by the project and were angry or uncomfortable as a result of it.

Several heterosexual staff wondered if other heterosexuals were being supportive of the project for "PC" reasons. LGBT students felt that there were many misperceptions about the project's purpose among heterosexuals, noting for example that people had suggested that a "safe zone" was a place where LGBT people could go and hide. The lesbian and bisexual women we interviewed were much more likely than other groups to attribute negative perceptions of the project to heterosexuals. It should be noted that these students, for the most part, did not live on campus and were not active in LGBT organizations. Thus, their perceptions were likely based on limited information. They were also at earlier stages of coming out and so may have been more fearful generally of people's reactions to LGBT concerns.

Overall, comments about heterosexual perceptions of the project were more varied. Interviewees, with the exception of the lesbian and bisexual women students, did recognize that many heterosexuals on campus were very supportive of the project. Among those who were viewed as less supportive, the project was seen as requiring people to think about their positions with regard to LGBT issues and that this level of awareness was often uncomfortable for people. Interviewees also noted that there were misconceptions of the project among some heterosexual people.

Perceptions of Administrators' Reactions Those individuals who had had contact with upper level university administrators were asked to comment on what they perceived to be the attitudes of these administrators about the project. Overall, administrators at the level of Vice President or higher were seen as neutral on the issue. Some indications of support were provided, however, and it was noted that administrators, like others on campus, had become more aware of LGBT issues and were more willing to discuss them than prior to the implementation of the Safe Zone project.

Suggestions Interviewees were asked about ways the Safe Zone project could be improved. Most people had no major suggestions because they felt that the project was working well. However, several ideas were provided for expanding the project. These included: (1) providing alternative ways of indicating a safe zone, such as buttons, magnets, or T-shirts; (2) publicizing the project to a greater extent, especially to new people on campus, and (3) providing more information and education, especially in the residence halls. Other suggestions were made to assist individuals who had posted stickers. These included: (1) providing information to these people about LGBT events, (2) developing a newsletter for allies, (3) creating a listserv for allies to be used for information and for advocacy efforts, and (4) publicizing the results of the evaluation study so people would know what the effects of the project are. Interviewees also urged that other needs of the LGBT community be addressed, such as employment of a full-time LGBTSS director, hiring of more supportive faculty, attention to LGBT issues in the curriculum, and expanded domestic partner benefits.

Overall, these suggestions are sensible and manageable. Reaching more students who might become allies by posting a sticker or wearing a button would do much to improve the climate for LGBT students on campus. Shared space issues could also be addressed by providing alternatives to stickers. Ways to inform new students and employees of the project are needed to keep the awareness level high and to infuse new people into the project. Allies need support; ways must be found to keep them informed, to assist them in their self-education efforts, and to let them know that they are valued. And most importantly, many issues face the LGBT community at Iowa State. We cannot forget that the Safe Zone project is a beginning, not an endpoint in addressing these concerns.