SPA Journal IU Spring 2020 Edition The Development of Gay College Men in Traditional Fraternities Alexis Fuentes Abstract Given the heteronormative environment that exists across the United States, there are few visible appropriate socializing forces for gay college men; therefore, they make their own decisions and actions that lead to their individual development (D’Augelli, 1994). Because fraternities are seen as a heteronormative and homogenous environment, there has been little research conducted on the experiences of gay college men in fraternities. This paper addresses the relationship between gender and sexual orientation that gay college men develop and navigate in fraternity environments. In a combination of several student development theories – Cass’s Model of Gay/Lesbian Identity Development, D’Augelli Model of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Development, and Connell’s Theory of Masculinity – and common themes in the literature – hegemonic masculinity, homophobia and femininity, and overachievement – a theory emerges on the development of gay college men in traditional fraternities. This theory serves as a model for students who have this intersecting identity and as a framework for student affairs professionals to better serve this student population. Keywords Fraternities, sexual orientation, gender, masculinity, homosexuality Alexis Fuentes is a recent graduate of Indiana University’s Higher Education & Student Affairs program. He is from San Diego, CA and received his B.A. in Psychology and Criminal Justice from California State University, Chico. At IU, he served as a Graduate Program Advisor for Union Board in the Student Involvement & Leadership Center and completed his practicum as a Graduate Intern for New Student Orientation in the Office of First-Year Experience Programs. Additionally, he was involved with professional associations such as NACA and ACUI. His work and future career interests include campus/student activities boards and new student orientation programs. Suggested citation: Fuentes, A. (2020). The development of gay college men in traditional fraternities. Journal of the Student Personnel Association at Indiana University, 68-77. 68 SPA Journal at IU Spring 2020 Edition Introduction “To better the man” and “making better men” - both of these mottos are examples that represent the values and beliefs of two traditional fraternity brotherhoods. Since 1776, traditional fraternities, defined as social organizations of male students designated and recognized by Greek letters, have been a part of the higher education experience nation-wide (Windmeyer & Miller, 2012). Social groups within college and university communities have a high impact on the development and socialization of college students (Rankin et al., 2007). Phi Betta Kappa, for example, created a common and shared college experience and tradition (Windmeyer & Miller, 2012). Like other fraternity brotherhoods, this group shares the interest in the promotion of friendship, literature, and morality. Traditional fraternities are characterized by their organization’s motto, secret handshake, and an initiation ritual that is highly secretive from the public (Windmeyer & Miller, 2012). Over the past 200 years, fraternity men have been the standard for measuring all other college men. College fraternity culture is a traditional heterosexist cultures in society (Windmeyer & Miller, 2012). The culture in fraternities promotes the “assumption of heteronormativity” on a college campus (Rankin et al., 2007). The assumption that fraternity men are heterosexuals is never explicit but always active in maintaining a brotherhood (Yeung et al., 2006). Fraternity men are a highly researched college- male subgroup that stand out as unsafe, dangerous, stigmatizing, dominant, and homogenous (Syrett, 2009). Because of this environment, gay college men are not always depicted and included in the research. The development of gay college men is essential because they navigate two different levels of identity: sexual orientation and gender, particularly masculinity. This issue is vital because gay men are becoming more visible in fraternities and the community is more supportive (Rankin et al., 2007). In their study, Rankin et al. (2007) found that 86-90% of participants who were gay, regardless of their current status, found to have “very supportive or supportive” members of their chapters. This article explores the various ways that gay college men develop their sexual orientation and gender through their experiences in fraternities. Although there is student development literature on gender and sexual orientation theories in higher education, there is minimal related research with the focus on fraternity environments. Very little theoretical literature exists on the relationship between the development of gay college men and college student development theories. As a response, a new student development theory must be created in the context of the established theories and the findings of the most common themes of fraternity experiences. A new connection needs to be established that offers a more complex understanding of masculinity and sexual orientation in the development of male students. There is little to no formal analysis of gay students who are or were members of college fraternities (Case et al., 2005). O’Neil and Casper (2011) argued that the lack of current programming and service delivery models for gay fraternity men in college is a consequence of the administration’s lack of theory to practice connection. A combination of both gender and sexual orientation analysis needs to be further developed to provide a more accurate representation of gay men in fraternities. By focusing on the ways in which gay men develop their gender and sexual orientation during and after joining a fraternity, I aim to shed light on their experiences with a focus on the relationship between their identities and the environment. This article explores one main question: How do gay college men and their experiences develop their gender and sexual orientation in a fraternity environment? This will be answered by looking at the ways that fraternity men choose to express their gender and sexual orientation. By researching the lived experiences of this student population, student affairs professionals and current fraternity members will be able to better serve and provide this population with resources to further their development. 69 Fuentes Literature Review In creating a new student development theory for gay college men in fraternities, existing literature and theories around gender and sexual orientation were examined to provide an understanding of this student population. Within the literature review, this paper focuses on hegemonic masculinity, homophobia and femininity, and overachievement. This is complemented by sexual orientation and gender identity theories that are prevalent to the development of gay college men. These topics are salient to the creation of a new theory because these are the main themes that were found within current research. The proposed student development theory was developed with the existing literature in mind. Hegemonic Masculinity Hegemonic masculinity in the United States is a prevailing narrative of masculine experiences that is seen in men’s daily practices, behaviors, and actions (Kimmel & Davis, 2011). The stress of masculinity affecting boys does not end when they arrive at college; instead, they are often compounded in “Guyland” (Kimmel, 2008). College brotherhoods are independently established as an institution designed only for young men. Hegemonic masculinity has been used mainly as a social structural concept to explore the legitimization of masculinities through social organizations and institutions (Jewkes et al., 2015). Men who do not measure to the hegemonic definition of masculinity—white, heterosexual, abrasive, assertive, competitive, athletic, and of affluent class—are compared with women and thus feminized (Yeung et al., 2006). Heterosexuality is a central element in the development of hegemonic masculinity, and to a great or lesser extent, hegemonic masculinity is established as a gender position that is as much “not gay” as it is “not female” (Jewkes, et al., 2015). Homosexuality is a primary challenge to the standards of heterosexual, hegemonic masculinity that is represented in all-male groups (Rankin et al., 2007). Gay men who navigate their identity in fraternities witness hegemonic masculinity and see the environment with masculinity depicted by the brothers. From the beginning, fraternity brothers have emitted a form of hegemonic masculinity that they have used to enable each other. They do this while dismissing others, and in so doing, fraternity brothers have not only structured their own lives, but also the lives of other students (Syrett, 2009). Fraternity men are those who perpetuate the cycle of hegemonic masculinity and keep the masculine-focused environment alive for students who are interested in joining a fraternity. Hegemonic masculinity in America explains what it means to be a “man” in society and nonconformity from this behavior is regularly met with conflict (Kimmel & Davis, 2011). Fraternities are an environment that produce hegemonic masculinity through a traditional, gender-segregated, racially limited, sexist, and highly homophobic masculine peer culture (Ross, 1999). Hegemonic masculinity focuses on the image of a man and defines manhood for all men; regardless of background or experiences.