Preview: Campus Pride 2012 LGBTQ National College Athlete Report

The dataset collected for this project is comprehensive and diverse. It includes responses from student-athletes of each identity and from all geographic areas, sports, and NCAA divisions. Demographically, LGBQ student-athletes (n = 394) share other marginalized identities more frequently than heterosexual student-athletes, including being women, Student-Athletes of Color, having a disability, not having a Christian spiritual affiliation, and not playing in a high-profile sport. Although there were only seven student-athletes who identified as transgender, we can say that they are much more likely to identity as LGBQ, all of them did not participate in a high-profile sport, and five of the seven are in Division III.

What Did We Find?

It is clear from the findings that climate affects LGBQ student-athletes’ academic and athletic outcomes. LGBQ student-athletes generally experience and perceive a more negative climate than their heterosexual peers in relation to four climate variables: Perceptions of Climate, Perceptions of Respect, Athletic Department Addresses Discrimination, and Diversity Leadership from Athletic Personnel. LGBQ student-athletes experience a more negative climate than their heterosexual peers which affects their academic success as well as their athletic identity.

The results also suggest that experiences and perceptions of climate affect student-athlete well-being. And student-athletes do experience harassment—LGBQ student-athletes twice as much as their heterosexual peers. In general, LGBQ student-athletes’ experiences with harassment parallel the overall sample in that it’s based on sport-related reasons and is usually perpetrated by coaches and other student-athletes, most frequently at practice. However, there are many less frequent circumstances that were disproportionately reported by LGBQ student-athletes. They are almost 28 times more likely to report that harassment is based on their sexual identity. They are also pressured to be silent about their identity over four times as much, and are singled out as the resident authority on their sexual identity almost six times as frequently as heterosexual student-athletes.

The proportion of LGBQ student-athletes reporting harassment in on-campus housing or in an off-campus setting is three times that of heterosexual student-athletes. In addition, the percentage who reports that the source of harassment is a student on campus (not an athlete), a student-athlete at a different institution, or Campus Security/Police, is two to four times higher. LGBQ student-athletes are less likely to consider leaving the university and are more likely to talk to a coach or make a formal complaint to a university official.

It’s clear that, while many of the experiences of LGBQ student athletes are similar to the general population, there are several ways in which their lives are very different from their heterosexual peers. Overall, “in-house” harassment, whether intentional or not, is the most prevalent kind experienced by our respondents. It follows, therefore, that athletic departments have the power to improve the collegiate experiences of the student-athletes in their charge through cooperation with athletic personnel, student-athletes, and faculty members at their institutions.

However, in order to effectively address the experiences of LGBQ student-athletes in particular, it behooves athletic personnel to look beyond the obvious and attend to the myriad of ways in which LGBQ student-athletes encounter discrimination and harassment as they strive to achieve both academic and athletic success.

Footnotes:

The report is based on a secondary analysis of data from the 2009 Student-Athlete Climate Study (SACS)^[1] that included 8,481 student-athletes enrolled in American universities representing all intercollegiate divisions and all NCAA sports. The purpose of LGBTQ Student-Athlete project was to examine the climate[2] for the 394 self-identified LGBTQ student-athletes in the SACS project. We explored how the climate (campus, departmental, team) influences LGBTQ student-athletes’ identity and success.

References

Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

Rankin, S., & Reason, R. D. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262-274. doi: 10.1037/a0014018

Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, M. S. (2010). 2010 state of higher education for LGBT people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.