| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| A
Glimpse at the Invisible Membership |
|
A National Survey of
Lesbigay Greeks |
| by Douglas N. Case |
| |
|
Download PDF of An Exploratory
Study of the Experiences of GLBT Fraternity &
Sorority Members Revisited |
| |
Over the course of the past few years, there has been substantial public attention to the
issue of lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men (which for simplicity I refer to as
"lesbigays") serving in the military. A great deal of research on the topic has
been undertaken, resulting in several published works, including Randy Shilts' best
selling book Conduct Unbecoming. In many ways, the social dynamics of lesbigays in college
fraternities and sororities parallels that of lesbigays in the armed forces. In both
cases, there are cohesive single-gender units of young adults in which the existence of
homosexuality or bisexuality is perceived as threatening. Unlike the flurry of information
chronicling the experiences of lesbigay members of the military, however, there has been
virtually no published research on the experiences lesbigay members of fraternities and
sororities.
A few years ago, I began an informal research project to attempt to shed some light on
this unexplored area. Like many gay fraternity men, as an undergraduate I led a very
"closeted" life, and it wasn't until after I had been graduated that I met other
gay men with Greek affiliation. With some colleagues, I devised a survey to distribute to
gay fraternity undergraduate members and alumni so I could compare their experiences --
and perhaps even better understand myself.
Initially the surveys were distributed, with the assistance of some friends and
associates, by word of mouth. From the initial responses, a 32-question survey instrument
was refined -- and at the request of several individuals, expanded to include both men and
women with Greek affiliation who currently consider themselves gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Methods for distributing the survey included publishing announcements in various gay and
lesbian publications, posting announcements to newsgroups and electronic mail discussion
lists on the Internet, and referrals from other respondents. A little over 500 responses
were eventually received with a good cross section of ages (ranging from 19 to 59 years
old, with a mean age of 31) and regions of the country. Since the respondents were
self-selected (in that they learned of the survey and took the initiative to respond), the
results may not be completely representative of a true random sample of all lesbigay
fraternity and sorority members (if it were possible to devise such).
Approximately 90% of the responses received were from men. There are several reasons for
the low proportion of women respondents: (1) The survey was expanded to include women
after about 100 responses from men had already been received. (2) Although studies to
determine the number of gays and lesbians in the general population have yielded varying
results (ranging from 1% to 15%, depending upon research methodology and the definition of
what constitutes a homosexual), the studies have fairly consistently found that gay men
outnumber lesbians by a factor ranging up to 2-to-1. (3) The survey was more prominently
publicized in some publications oriented more toward gay men. (4) As indicated below,
women respondents tended to develop their homosexual or bisexual identity later than men.
(5) It is also possible that gay/bisexual male students find the lifestyle of the Greek
collegiate community more appealing than do lesbian/bisexual women.
The percentage of Greek students who are lesbigay is difficult to accurately determine.
Many students are still in the process of developing their sexual identity while in
college. For example, of the survey respondents, over a third of the men and 80% of the
women self-identified as heterosexual at the time they were initiated, but by graduation
only 20% of the men and a little over 40% of the women identified themselves as
heterosexual. Many identified themselves as bisexual for a period of time before accepting
a self-identity as gay or lesbian. In terms of sexual experience, 45% of the men had their
first post-pubescent homosexual experience prior to college, 39% during college, and 15%
after college. For women, the corresponding figures are 12% prior to college, 52% during
college, and 37% after college.
Of the male survey respondents, the average total number of fellow chapter members who the
respondent currently knew with certainty (rather than mere speculation) to be gay or
bisexual was 3.5 (a total of 4.5 if the respondent himself is included). Often, the
respondents did not discover or confirm a fellow member's homosexual or bisexual
orientation until after they both had been graduated. With an mean reported chapter size
of 52, it is probable that the average respondent matriculated with 75 - 90 different
brothers over the course of his undergraduate career. Thus, a total of approximately 5 -
6% of the chapter membership was known by the respondents to be gay/bisexual. The women
reported knowing with certainty that an average of 2.9 fellow members were
lesbian/bisexual, with an average chapter size of 81, meaning that a total of
approximately 3 - 4% of the chapter membership was known to be lesbian or bisexual. The
actual percentages of lesbigay members would, of course, be higher, to include those
others not known with certainty by the respondents to be lesbigay.
The data collected suggests that lesbigay students join fraternities and sororities for
reasons similar to those one would expect from a sample of heterosexual students. The top
three reasons listed were (1) friendship and camaraderie, (2) social activities, and (3) a
support group and sense of belonging. Likewise, the benefits of Greek membership reported
by the lesbigay students were similar to those that would likely be reported by other
students -- the top three being (1) social and interpersonal skills, (2) long-term
friendships, and (3) leadership skills. Sexual attraction or the opportunity to meet
potential same-gender sexual partners was not a significant reason for joining a
fraternity or sorority; only 3% marked "to meet members of the same sex" as one
of their top three reasons for joining. A little more than a third, however, reported
having at least one sexual encounter with a member of their chapter while in college.
One area where lesbigay fraternity/sorority members appear to differ from their
heterosexual peers is in chapter leadership. Over 80% of the men and over 60% of the women
had held at least one of the following executive committee positions in their chapter:
president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, new member educator, rush chair and
social chair. Over 20% of the men had served as president of their chapter, although only
6% of the women had served as president. This tendency toward "overachievement"
may reflect a desire for validation and acceptance by the group. Another explanation may
be that lesbigay members channel their energies into organizational leadership that others
apply toward developing heterosexual relationships.
Over 70% of the respondents, indicated that they had encountered homophobic or
heterosexist attitudes within their chapter, usually in the form of derogatory jokes or
comments. Homophobia was also frequently evidenced in membership selection. If a rushee
was rumored or perceived to be gay or lesbian, the chapter was likely to summarily vote
against offering the rushee a bid to join. Likewise if a pledge was discovered or believed
to be gay or lesbian, the chapter was inclined to dismiss the pledge. More often than not,
the initiated lesbigay member(s) would voice no opposition to the discrimination, fearing
that to do so might cause other members to question their motivation. One man even wrote,
"A rushee was blackballed because of suspected homosexuality. I was one of the three
who blackballed him. Five years later I met this individual again at a bar, and we have
been lovers for eight years now (and going strong)!"
While chapters seemed generally unwilling to pledge or initiate a student thought to be
lesbian or gay, greater tolerance was demonstrated if the homosexual orientation of an
initiate became known. About 40% of the respondents "came out" (i.e., revealed
their sexual orientation) to at least one other member of their chapter while they were in
college. Here there is a sharp generational difference. For example, of those who were
graduated before 1980, only 12% "came out" to anyone in their chapter. There are
also some regional differences reflected in the responses. Those from the southern region
of the country were more reticent to "come out" and reported a higher incidence
of negative responses than the other regions.
The responses of fellow members to the revelation that a member was lesbian, gay or
bisexual varied widely, from immediate expulsion and physical threats at the one extreme
to complete acceptance at the other. In most cases, however, the majority of the chapter
had at least a somewhat supportive response, with only a few members responding with
rejection. In those instances in which the lesbigay member had control over the
circumstances, by voluntarily determining the time, manner and recipients of the
disclosure, the response was much more likely to be supportive than in those instances in
which the member's sexual orientation was discovered by others.
There is a noteworthy dichotomy between chapters' responses to prospective members or
pre-initiates who are perceived to be lesbigay and their response to the revelation that
an initiated member is lesbigay. With few exceptions, chapters are very reluctant to offer
a invitation of membership to a rushee perceived to be lesbigay. On the other hand, while
some initiated lesbigay members faced expulsion or ostracism after their sexual
orientation became known, more frequently lesbigay members who "came out" did
not face the rejection they had feared. This is comparable to the experiences of lesbigays
who have "come out" to their families. Far more often than not, siblings strive
to be understanding and supportive when they learn that a brother or sister is lesbian or
gay, even when the sibling harbors homophobic attitudes and beliefs. It is not unusual for
it to take a period of time for siblings to process this cognitive dissonance, but in the
long run brotherhood and sisterhood tend to prevail over fear and prejudice.
Slowly, but surely the things are changing for the better in terms of tolerance and
acceptance of lesbigays within the Greek community. One chapter president who was recently
graduated from a large midwestern university, organized a "coming out" party for
himself during his final term, to which the entire chapter was invited and most attended.
Another chapter president who also recently graduated from a large midwestern university,
reported that he was reelected as president for a second year shortly after "coming
out" to the chapter.
Another respondent who was one of two openly gay members of his chapter, submitted a
provocative essay detailing some of the dilemmas with which his chapter has had to
confront. These included whether or not the gay members should be permitted to invite male
dates to the fraternity's date dances and whether the chapter should make a conscious
effort to conceal from others (such as rushees, alumni and parents) the fact that the
chapter had openly gay members.
Factors that respondents frequently indicated as detracting from their Greek experience
were that social activities were geared for heterosexual couples, that they felt
intimidated by homophobic attitudes and remarks, and that they felt it was difficult to
get close to other members because they felt a need to hide a significant part of their
lives. Nonetheless, about 85% reported that overall they were either very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with their Greek experience.
Although the statistical results of the survey are interesting, the most meaningful
information can be found in the narratives that many included to elaborate on their
responses. Let me share excerpts from two that I believe speak volumes about the gay Greek
experience. The first is from a 1963 graduate of Brown University, who served as president
of his chapter:
"In considering the questions asked, it occurs to me how very dramatically the world
has changed in the 30+ years which separate me from my undergraduate experience.
"In my opinion, the fraternity system in the late '50's and early '60's merely
reflected the predominant social values of the times, it did not create them. Homophobia
was just another of the postwar social norms . . . My sexual repression was firmly in
place way before I hit the ivy covered walls, and in a sense fraternity membership, not to
mention achieving fraternity leadership, was elemental to the expression of this
repression. It represented simply another layer of the cloak which was designed to hide my
true identity.
"It took tremendous courage to be openly gay in this era. There was little public
tolerance for deviant behavior, and certainly in university courses such as Sociology 201
(Nuts and Sluts), my recollection is that homosexuality ran a distant third behind
alcoholism and nymphomania in emphasis and treatment.
"The environment didn't do a whole lot for the self-esteem of your average emerging
homosexual, and generations of psychotherapists have grown rich treating the multiple
personality disorders which resulted. But fraternity membership was, on balance, a
constructive force in my development. Being a member gave me a social identity. It
provided a "community" in which to develop leadership and interpersonal skills .
. .
"No, I haven't found it appropriate to publish a newsletter announcing my true sexual
orientation to these friends from the past, and as a divorced father of two (pretty neat)
kids, I guess the supposition is that I'm straight -- to the degree that anyone thinks
about such things.
"I'm out to my kids, I'm out to my (current) friends, and even out to a few of the
people I went to high school with . . . It has been an interesting journey of
self-discovery and self-acceptance, and an incredibly enriching one as well. My fraternity
experience was simply a stop along the way."
The second excerpt, is from the survey of a fraternity member was graduated thirty years
later, in 1993, from the University of Wyoming. He "came out" to the chapter
during rush and thus never had to hide his sexual orientation from his brothers:
"I have really enjoyed my experiences in my fraternity. I have managed to change
quite a few of my brother's ideas about gays. David [name changed], who was our vice
president when I was initiated and is now our president, is a redneck from Nebraska. We
have spent a lot of time together this semester. David and I drove to our regional
convention this past spring and really got to know each other better. David recently
admitted that he had quite a few reservations about my joining the fraternity. He said he
used to think of gays as being "sub-human." In high school, David and his
friends actually went into Omaha one weekend to "beat up fags." They didn't find
any gays to beat up, but he acknowledges that he was excited about the prospect. Now when
I see David on campus, he comes up and gives me a hug (a fairly butch hug, but a hug
nonetheless). We've discussed our romantic and sexual problems. We occasionally work out
together and we take a shower at the gym afterwards.
"This semester, Robert [name changed], the homophobe [mentioned previously in his
survey] rushed a friend who he knows from the College Republicans group. This friend also
writes a column for the campus paper. In this column he has attacked gays three times in
the past year. As the rush chairman, I have the ultimate say in whether or not we extend a
bid to prospective members. I could have kept this guy from joining our fraternity. I
expressed my concerns about him to a couple of men in the fraternity. As a result, the
president, treasurer, and sergeant-at-arms visited the individual to explain that his
homophobic beliefs could not enter into the fraternity. They explained to him that his
ideas were his own, but that they had no business in the fraternity. This individual was
initiated over a month ago, and I haven't had a single problem with him. He actually goes
out his way to come over and say hello when we see each other on campus."
These two responses reflect our changing times. Lesbigay students have always been in
fraternities and sororities, although their identity has almost always been hidden.
"Don't ask, don't tell," the newly prescribed modus operandi of the military has
long been the norm in the Greek community when it comes to homosexuality and bisexuality.
In today's world, though, more lesbigay students on campus, including those in
fraternities and sororities, feel compelled to no longer hide their true identities.
By acknowledging the existence of these hidden members and attempting to understand their
experiences, Greek affairs professionals will be better equipped to assist fraternities
and sororities in dealing with the challenges created when a traditionally heterosexist
institution comes face-to-face with its non-heterosexual members. Doug Case is the
Coordinator of Residential Fraternity and Sorority Life at San Diego State University and
served as President of Association of Fraternity Advisors in 1991. He is a member of Kappa
Sigma and serves on the International Fraternity's Scholarship Commission. Doug is active
in several gay and lesbian organizations and is an honorary member of Delta Lambda Phi, a
national fraternity for gay, bisexual and progressive men. For more information about his
research, contact him at Housing and Residential Life Office, San Diego State University,
5500 Campanile Drive, Mail Code 1802, San Diego, CA 92182-1802; (619) 594-2939; e-mail:
Doug.Case@sdsu.edu |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
