Experiences and Perceptions of and Bisexual Fraternity Members From 1960 to 2007: A Cohort Analysis

Susan R. Rankin, Grahaeme A. Hesp, Genevieve N. Weber

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 54, Number 6, November/December 2013, pp. 570-590 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/csd.2013.0091

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v054/54.6.rankin.html

Access provided by Penn State Univ Libraries (10 Dec 2013 09:42 GMT) Experiences and Perceptions of Gay and Bisexual Fraternity Members From 1960 to 2007: A Cohort Analysis Susan R. Rankin Grahaeme A. Hesp Genevieve N. Weber

The study included 337 self-identified gay and as heterosexual (Dilley, 2005; Rankin 2003; bisexual fraternity members, with 170 joining Rankin, Weber, Blumenthal, & Frazer, 2010). their chapters in the year 2000 or after, 99 For the purposes of this article, when referring to joining their chapters between the years 1990 the overall “community” we use LGBT (, and 1999, and 68 joining in the year 1989 or Gay, Bisexual, ). In the literature before. Participants who self-identified as gay or review, we use the identifiers bisexual men and who joined in the year 2000 or used by the authors cited. Bieschke, Eberz, and after reported a more positive experience overall as Wilson (2000) completed a meta-analysis of the fraternity members than did the participants who experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) joined at any time prior. Each new cohort showed students. In the studies the authors reviewed, movement toward a more accepting environment LGB students reported experiencing high levels for gay or bisexual individuals. The data suggest of harassment on campus, and in three studies that the fraternity environment is increasingly that compared LGB and non-LGB students’ becoming more accepting of gay and bisexual experiences LGB students reported statistically individuals and the LGBT community. significant higher levels of harassment. Bieschke and her colleagues identified only six studies Research indicates that students experience a addressing the experiences of LGB students campus climate based upon their social group (and none that addressed the experiences of membership (Chang, 2002) and students who transgender students). experience a supportive campus are more likely Bieschke et al. (2000) suggested that to consider their college experience as positive the research they reviewed was “sparse” and (Milem, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). “methodologically flawed” thus limiting the Understanding how students from various findings’ generalizablility. Bieschke et al. offered social groups experience a campus climate that the majority of the research reviewed is therefore important to higher education in their meta-analysis contained research professionals in designing successful out-of-the designs that were “atheoretical in both their classroom experiences. conceptualization and discussion of results The literature suggests that college and not based on previous research” (p. 45). campuses have been and continue to be difficult With regard to sampling, the studies Bieschke environments for students who do not identify et al. reviewed were mostly single institution

Susan R. Rankin (retired) is a former Associate Professor of Education and Research Associate at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at The Pennsylvania State University. Grahaeme A. Hesp is Senior Faculty and Director of Academics at FIE: Foundation for International Education. Genevieve N. Weber is Associate Professor of Counseling and Mental Health Professions at Hofstra University. Other contributors include Douglas Case, Charles Eberly, George Miller, and William Molasso. Research supported by the (http://www.lambda10.org).

570 Journal of College Student Development Gay & Bisexual Fraternity Members projects and used convenience sampling. not taken a back seat to the affirmative Rankin (2003) conducted a study to changes noted on college campuses across address some of the issues identified by the nation. Several fraternities and sororities Bieschke et al. (2000). The project included have responded by adding 14 institutions from geographically disperse to their nondiscrimination language in locations and was methodologically sound, organizational by-laws, implementing chapter thus allowing greater generalizability of the LGBT educational services, and training staff findings. In Rankin’s study LGBT students members on LGBT issues. reported that they feared for their physical Despite the recent increase in research safety, concealed their sexual orientation to on sexual orientation and the collegiate avoid intimidation, and felt that discussing experiences of those who identify as LGBT their sexual orientation to those in power (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005; Jones, 2009; could lead to negative consequences. Student- Morrison & Morrison, 2002; Mueller & on-student harassment was the most prevalent Cole, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; form, reinforcing the need to educate students Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, about LGBT issues and concerns. Rankin and 2005), few studies have been conducted to colleague’s (2010) report titled “State of Higher examine the experiences of LGBT members Education for LGBT People,” which was based of fraternities and sororities. More specifically, on a national sample of 6,000 students, faculty, there is very little empirical research on the and staff, found similar experiences and experiences of gay and bisexual men who are perceptions for LGBT students as well as for involved in fraternities. Therefore, one wonders LGBT faculty and staff members. if the climate for gay and bisexual fraternity Although LGBT individuals on college members has improved as affirmative steps campuses continue to encounter a hostile towards LGBT inclusion have been taken. climate, conditions have improved somewhat Research on communities and subcultures in over the years (Rankin et al., 2010). These education has focused primarily on identifying changes can be attributed to affirmative steps common threads and exploring how these taken by campus communities such as including connections function to maintain cohesion and sexual orientation in nondiscrimination develop the overall concept of climate (Boisnier, policies and providing visible LGBT educa­ 2004). It is unknown, however, how the tional services. Communities such as those experiences and perceptions of gay and bisexual comprising fraternity chapter brothers are fraternity members have been influenced by bound together by common threads entwined improving campus climates for LGBT people. by interpersonal exchanges and rituals that As such, the purpose of the current study was continually communicate and construct to assess the experiences and perceptions of gay the concept of the organization’s culture and bisexual fraternity members over the last and climate (Rhoads, 1994; Woods, 1992). 40 years. In the current project, many of the The climate of the college fraternity and methodological flaws identified in Bieschke its traditions have historically ascribed to a et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis were addressed. heteronormative culture, resulting in both First, a thorough review of the extant literature supportive and hostile experiences for those was conducted and the conceptual model and who do not identify as heterosexual (Capraro, climate construct offered had been used with 2000; Case, 1996; Case, Hesp, & Eberly, success in previous projects (Rankin, 2003). 2005). The college fraternity, however, has Because of the inherent difficulty in sampling

November/December 2013 ◆ vol 54 no 6 571 Rankin, Hesp, & Weber the LGB population, convenience sampling sororities. Based on response to a 32-question also was used for the current project. However, survey, Case found that the LGB participants we followed Bieschke et al.’s recommendations joined fraternities and sororities for reasons for greater representation in that we cast a wide similar to those of heterosexual students, net for our initial invitation and requested that namely friendship, social activities, and a prospective participants forward the invitation sense of belonging. Respondents also noted on to other members of the LGB fraternity lasting outcomes of joining fraternities and community who may be less “out” about sororities (often termed “Greek” organizations their sexual identity. We also used national as most fraternities and sororities have Greek- fraternity networks to enable us to have broader letter names) including improved social and representation (e.g., beyond a single institution interpersonal skills, leadership skills, and or single fraternity). long-term friendships (Case et al., 2005). The results also found the heterocentric nature Literature Review of fraternity and sorority social activities, homophobic attitudes within organizations, Identity Development and perceived need for LGB students to Sexual identity formation generally is recogn­ ized hide their sexual orientation detracted from as one of many facets of individual development­ the Greek experience. Nevertheless, most influenced by the experiences and inter­actions respondents (85%) reported satisfaction with associated with collegiate life (Pascarella & their overall fraternity/sorority experience. Terenzini, 2005). In a 2004 study, Antonio Case’s (1996) results suggest that approxi­ found that social groups within college and mately 6% of fraternity members and 4% of university communities have a profound impact sorority members identified as LGB. Nearly on student development and socialization and, half (40%) of all respondents acknowledged thus, on satisfaction. According to Antonio, revealing their sexual orientation to one personal interaction strongly influences the or more members of their chapter while development of shared social norms. In the enrolled as students. Additionally, over 70% case of LGBT students, whom climate studies of respondents indicated having experienced indicate often experience and homophobic or heterosexist attitudes within harassment within the campus community their chapter. This result supports the hypothesis (Brown, Clarke, Gort­maker, & Robinson- that most students in fraternities and sororities Keilig, 2004; Rankin, 2003; Rankin et al., 2010; “score higher on measures of homosexual Sears, 2002), it seems logical that some students intolerance” (Lottes & Kuriloff, 1994, p. 34). choose not to disclose their sexual identity out of Notably, respondents in Case’s study suggested fear of such acts and rejection from their social that LGB members often voiced no opposition groups. It is also no surprise then that affiliation to homophobic behavior for fear that doing with student organizations may greatly influence so might reveal their own sexual orientation. the homo-emotional experiences of students This reaction (or lack thereof) may also have identified as LGBT (Dilley, 2005). something to do with the fact that members of fraternities and sororities are encouraged to Fraternity and Sorority Culture and be loyal to both tradition and fellow members Sexual Orientation (Owen, 1991) often leaving LGB Greeks no Case (1996) shed some light on the experiences choice but to hide their true opinions and of nonheterosexual members of fraternities and selves from their “brothers” and “sisters.” This

572 Journal of College Student Development Gay & Bisexual Fraternity Members likely has a negative impact on the satisfaction (p. 38), whereby the gay youth tries to put with their collegiate experiences. Based on all of the nonsexual events of life in perfect this data, chapters often were reluctant to order and have them under perfect control. A offer membership to openly LGB pledges, variation of Johnson’s pattern is the attempt of yet were typically supportive when initiated the gay/lesbian student to blend and appear as members “came out” to the chapter. As such, much like heterosexual peers as possible. It is it may be presumed that after therefore no surprise that Case discovered that initiation greatly improved the chances that over 80% of nonheterosexual men and 60% a fraternity/sorority member would have of nonheterosexual women held at least one increased satisfaction as a student (Trump, Greek executive committee position during 2003; Trump & Wallace, 2005). For readers their collegiate years. Likewise, the majority who are not familiar with the “pledge” process, of participants in a more recent study (Hesp, at the end of the formal recruitment period, 2005) held at least one leadership position in the various organizations invite the visitors their fraternity chapters. Furthermore, of the 30 of their choice to “pledge” the fraternity or coming out stories chronicled by Windmeyer sorority. If the invitation, or “bid,” is accepted, and Freeman (1998) and Windmeyer (2005), the student will be admitted to the chapter as a strong majority contained references to the a pledge until he is initiated as a full member. authors as officers or leaders. In a similar vein Many fraternities and sororities have forgone to Johnson’s conclusion, this “tendency toward the term pledge as part of their education ‘overachievement,’” Case reasoned, “may process due to the negative association made reflect a desire for validation and acceptance by by many people in the United States, and some the group” (p. 2). Similarly, Logue, Hutchens, organizations have completely eliminated both and Hector (2005) established that students the term and process. who held leadership positions found their Case’s (1996) findings support previous involvement to be beneficial and an overall research that focused more generally on positive experience. satisfaction with involvement in student In a study of students at 18 colleges organizations and/or Greek life. In a study on and universities, fraternity and sorority the influence of Greek life on development and membership was negatively associated with the collegiate experience, Pike (2000) found students’ openness to diversity (Pascarella et al., that involvement in Greek social organizations 1996). It is no surprise then that Case et al. was positively related to self-reported gains in (2005) described the “familial environment of overall abilities. In a later study, Pike (2003) the college fraternity/sorority” (p. 16) as both confirmed that Greek students reported supportive and hostile—specifically for those higher levels of involvement and gains than in the minority. In a study investigating the did non-Greeks. Upperclassmen and women conflict between the belief in the existence of involved in the Greek community were found a culturally normative idea of male behavior— to be significantly more involved in positive known as hegemonic masculinity—as an leadership roles than were first-year members influence/explanation for extreme drinking and, therefore, more widely reported the within all male groups, Capraro (2000) found benefits of their Greek experience (Pike, that often is believed to be a 2003). Johnson (1996) suggested that some direct challenge to the norms of homosocial gay adolescents follow one option of being “hegemonic masculinities” that undergird daily the “best little boy on the face of the earth” life within all-male groups. Behavior counter

November/December 2013 ◆ vol 54 no 6 573 Rankin, Hesp, & Weber to this perceived community norm would women’s sororities who have implemented these thus likely have a negative impact on student initiatives (, n.d.). satisfaction with their membership experience To provide an opportunity to be “out” and within their fraternity/sorority chapter. in a fraternity, Delta Lambda Phi became the Windmeyer and Freeman’s (1998) anthol­ first national social fraternity for gay, bisexual, ogy examining the experiences of gay and and heterosexual progressive men in 1986. bisexual men in fraternities and their 2001 The purpose of the fraternity is not much companion anthology for lesbian and bisexual different than a traditional fraternity. Free of women in sororities support the empirical and , their fraternal research findings. Participants offer that the environment provides a safe, comfortable acceptance of LGB fraternity brothers and space for men to develop a strong sense of sorority sisters is relatively greater when friendship and a balanced sexual identity. members join the fraternity/sorority closeted, Heterosexual members do not need to conform establish a close friendship and brotherhood/ to gender norms or be concerned about sisterhood, and then disclose their sexual “proving” their to be accepted identity. Participants also suggested that the by the fraternity brothers. These men are experiences of LGB members vary greatly able to gain the promise of fraternity life— depending on the individuals within the friendship, valuable leadership skills, and a chapter, the college climate, and the national positive self-esteem—without homophobia fraternity/sorority leadership. Men and women and heterosexism present in many traditional who rush openly as gay, lesbian or bisexual often fraternities (Yueng, Stombler, & Wharton, are denied fraternity/sorority membership. For 2006). Delta Lambda Phi currently has over readers not familiar with “rush” the process 30 chapters and colonies. Local GBT-focused of joining a fraternity or sorority commonly fraternities have recently been established, begins with “rushing” or recruitment. The including Alpha Lambda Tau (University of term rush refers to the historical practice where Nevada, Las Vegas, 1999), Sigma Lambda Beta students would hurry to join fraternities at the (Arizona State University, 2004), and Sigma beginning of the school year, in a large part Epsilon Omega (University of California, to find housing. Rush usually is followed by Berkeley, 2007). pledging, or committing. Both Windmeyer The extant literature describes the hetero­ and Freeman (1998, 2001) and Windmeyer normativity of Greek organizations (Capraro, (2005) affirmed that some men and women 2000; Case, 1996). In addition, there is sparse who are openly gay, or who later come out, empirical data examining the experiences and achieved and maintained membership in perceptions of this population. Given the fraternity/sorority chapters. In addition, they more recent affirmative steps taken by campus underscored the progress around these issues communities (including sexual orientation in over the last few decades. nondiscrimination policies, providing visible In the mid to late 1990s, several national LGBT educational services, developing LGB fraternities and sororities responded by adding fraternities and sororities, etc.) to enhance sexual orientation to the nondiscrimination the climate for LGBT people, one wonders language in organizational by-laws, implement­ing if the climate for gay and bisexual fraternity chapter LGBT educational services, and training members has improved. Therefore, this project staff members on LGBT issues. Currently, there assessed the experiences and perceptions of gay are over a dozen men’s fraternities and four and bisexual fraternity members to identify

574 Journal of College Student Development Gay & Bisexual Fraternity Members how cohorts over time were influenced by the marketing and communication plan, please improving campus climates for LGBT people. v