C:\Documents and Settings\lsears\Desktop\qt.htm

susiescorcher and Pinky Madison Present: A newsletter on Queer Faculty and Staff at Agnes Scott College

Our project, Queer Faculty and Staff at Agnes Scott College, looked at current and previous faculty and staff handbooks to see what kinds of limitations and benefits were systematically enforced that would affect queer faculty and staff. We also met with Karen Gilbert, the director of Human Resources, interviewed two queer Agnes Scott employees, and spoke with Associate Dean of Students Kijua Sanders-McMurtry. This project relates to the class because it looks at the intersectionality of being queer and an employee of a college, and how that queerness relates to the professional lives of Agnes Scott faculty and staff.

Disclaimer: The formatting of this is going to be strange. It was in a columnized, newsletter format when created, but I am incapable of figuring out how to replicate these results on blogger.

Issue No. 1 Wed, Dec 1^st, 2010

Agnes Scott Queer Times

Researched and Edited by susiescorcher and Pinky Madison

Agnes Scott Staff Dress Code:

Agnes Scott College is viewed from the outside as a decidedly liberal school. Many students feel like Agnes Scott functions like a bubble where we have freedom to be whoever we want to be. A rather large amount of talk occurs about the college’s lack of a transgender policy for students, but little attention is paid to what the existing policies are for Agnes Scott College staff members. After consulting the staff handbook and meeting with Karen Gilbert, the director of Agnes Scott Human Resources, here’s what I’ve found.

Though obviously transitioning is about much more than clothes, it is one of the more obvious steps in the process. The Agnes Scott College Staff Handbook does not actually have a dress code provided for all staff members. The policy states that individual dress codes are created and enforced by each worker’s supervisor. This of course means that the policy can differ wildly from supervisor to supervisor, though Karen Gilbert assured me that if a staff member is transitioning, they can speak with their supervisor and should be allowed to wear job-appropriate clothing of the gender they are transitioning to.

While it is certainly good that staff members are theoretically allowed to transition in the work place at Agnes Scott, the lack of explicitly stated policy could be troubling to some. Karen Gilbert made it clear that she could not see a reason why a supervisor would not allow an employee to transition, but is the lack of one clear, official stance on the matter may be discouraging to staff members. We could not find any openly trans staff members willing to comment, so perhaps this is not the case, but from the information we do have, it seems it may be problematic.

Discrimination or Harassment and Equal Employment Opportunity Policies:

historical revisions of policies needed to protect queer faculty and staff

Two of the major pieces of policy which affect the everyday experiences of queer faculty and staff are the Discrimination or Harassment Policy and the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. In both of the staff handbooks to which we were able to obtain access, the 1999 Personnel Handbook and the 2004 Employee Handbook, both of these policies were present.

The Discrimination or Harassment policy protects all faculty and staff from discrimination or harassment related to a number of facets of their identity. The policy statement was constructed by the Board of Trustees of the college and published on May 18, 1990. It appears in the following format in both the 1999 and the 2004 publications of policy handbook:

Agnes Scott College values diversity and seeks to foster an environment that welcomes and supports contributions from all members of the Agnes Scott College community. Discrimination or harassment is unacceptable on this campus. Such behavior is contrary to our intellectual environment and the spirit of fellowship fundamental to our community.

Discrimination or harassment may take many forms, including but not limited to verbal insults, inappropriate humor, defacement or destruction of property and physical intimidation. It may be directed at any one of our distinctive human differences, all members of our community are diminished by these acts.

Harassment or discrimination of any person or group of persons on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability is a violation of Agnes Scott College policy. Persons determined to have engaged in unacceptable behavior, such as activity which substantially threatens or interferes with another person's academic efforts, property, employment or participation in the life of the College or creates a hostile or demeaning atmosphere, will be subject to prompt disciplinary action.”

The identities protected by the policy include sexual orientation which is an important protection for certain queer people. However, the absence in this policy of gender expression, gender identity or genetic information leaves vulnerable some of the most currently under-protected queer populations – intersex people, trans-identified people and gender-queer people.

The most recent version of the Equal Employment Opportunity policy, however, revises these elisions, which were made also in the 1999 Equal Opportunity statement. In the 1999 handbook, the portion of the Equal Opportunity Policy which lists the identities the policy protects appears as follow:

Agnes Scott College is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Our College Policy is to recruit, employ, and promote the best possible talent in all positions without regard to age, sex, race, religion, color, national origin, disability, or veterans of the Vietnam War.

After detailing the procedures that employees should take to seek and apply for positions, the statement recommends that “Employees are encouraged to refer minority applicants to the Office of Human Resources for all posted positions,” providing additional reinforcement that employed members of the campus community abide by the policy.

The 2004 publication of the statement appears as the Equal Employment Opportunity policy appears as follows:

To provide equal employment and advancement opportunities to all individuals, employment decisions at Agnes Scott College will be based on merit, qualifications, and abilities. ASC does not discriminate in employment opportunities or practices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, gender identity and gender expression or any other characteristic protected by the law. […]

Employees are encouraged to refer qualified applicants, including all minority applicants, to the Office of Human Resources for all posted positions.

Employees with questions or concerns about any type of discrimination in the workplace are encouraged to bring these issues to the attention of their immediate supervisor or the Office of Human Resources. Employees can raise concerns and make reports without fear of reprisal. Anyone found to be engaging in any type of unlawful discrimination will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.

This version of the policy has been considerably revised. The criteria sought after in employees is more specifically qualified – from “the best possible talent” to “merit, qualifications, and abilities.” This development concretizes “talent” into more tangible and quantifiable measurements.

What's more, the list of identities enumerated in the 2004 version of the policy has been expanded in ways that are important for the acknowledgement and protection of certain invisiblized queer people; added to the list are sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, and gender expression. Though the progress made in the Equal Employment Opportunity policy is commendable, the need remains for the protection of those identities elided in the Discrimination or Harassment policy.

Agnes Scott Staff Leave Policy

Agnes Scott College’s policy on leave for staff and faculty members is largely influenced by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), though the wording of the handbook implies that it has been customized for the college as well. In order for a staff member to be eligible for leave, they must have worked for the college for 12 months or 52 weeks, though these don’t have to be consecutive. Leave is granted for the birth or adoption of a child (both female and male employees are eligible), a serious health condition of the employee, or to take care of a family member’s serious illness. Family member is defined as the faculty or staff member's spouse, sponsored "domestic partner," daughter, son, parent or individual who served as legal guardian and primary-care giver, when the faculty or staff member was a child. A "parent" is any individual who assumed the day-to day and financial responsibility for the faculty or staff member when the faculty member was a child.

While this current policy is quite good, the previous staff handbook, from 1999, lacks the term “domestic partner” in its coverage; the language “husband and wife” is still used. When speaking with Karen Gilbert, she made it clear how proud she was of the fact that Agnes Scott implemented paternity leave years before many other employers did. One “catch” present in the policy is that if both parents are employed by Agnes Scott College, they can only take 12 weeks of combined leave, 8 weeks paid and 4 weeks unpaid. This might suggest some problematic ideas about child rearing, suggesting that the presence of two parents is not important for a new child. This also does not take into account any possible birth complications necessitating more extensive leave, though I do think that Agnes Scott would be flexible in cases such as that.

The Agnes Scott policies we have looked at all seem to be quite inclusive, though I would say that that is expected. Though we were unable to get hold of a staff handbook from before 1999, Agnes Scott policies from the last eleven years have been rather impressive. I was informed that some changes were being discussed for the staff handbook, but it was heavily implied that the particular policies I was researching.

Development of Health Insurance Policies

Employee health insurance policies are a powerful sign of whether a work place validates or makes invisible certain types of families. Agnes Scott's health insurance policies have shown slight but significant evolution in the institution's recognition of queer families.

We were given access to four different versions of faculty and staff handbooks in the College's recent history: the faculty handbooks from 1996-1997 and from 1997-1998 (both archival copies in the possession of the college's faculty services office), the personnel handbook from 1999 (made available to us by the college library's archivist), and the current employee handbook issued in 2004 which can be found online through the Human Resources link on the college's intranet website.

In each of these handbooks, the relevant policies for an analysis of the historical development of the college's health insurance polices included, from the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 handbook, the term life insurance policy and the medical insurance policy; from the 1997-1998 handbook, the term life insurance policy, the medical insurance policy, the dental insurance policy, and the vision insurance policy; from the 1999 handbook, the health insurance policy and the life insurance policy; and from the 2004 handbook, the health insurance policy, the life insurance policy, the dental insurance policy and the vision insurance policy.

The 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 faculty handbooks, both health and life insurance policies remain unchanged. In both policies, half-time and full-time faculty member eligibility for life and health insurance options are explained and methods of payment are elaborated. The life insurance policy states that “Coverage is also available for spouse and children,” a choice of wording which leaves invisible non-legally binding queer relationships, which may nevertheless be as committed as legalized marriages. Similarly in the medical insurance policy, dependents are defined loosely as spouse and children: “If eligible dependents are to be covered by Agnes Scott College health insurance, dependents must be enrolled when the faculty member is hired, or when dependents first become eligible (i.e. marriage, new birth).” For “dependent” in this case to mean life-partner, it seems a faculty member would have to declare them at the time of hiring, because “marriage” and “new birth” are the only relational developments in a person's life which the policy is technically required to recognize.

As for the dental and vision plans, there is a slight alteration in the articulation of the policy between the 1997-1998 faculty handbook and the 2004 employee handbook. The 1997-1998 policy on both dental and vision stipulates that “Eligible participants wishing to have family members covered by the Agnes Scott plan will pay the difference between employee coverage and the two-party or family rate.” This policy articulation appears to subject employees to an external validation process of what constitutes a family member; no definition of “family” is given. In the 2004 articulations of the these plans, the wording has been changed: “Agnes Scott College's dental-insurance plan provides employees and their dependents access to dental- insurance benefits.” This change from “family” to “dependents” takes the emphasis off of legal or otherwise arbitrary definitions of “family” which might not include queer relationships and emphasizes instead a more practical specification of relationship – dependency, or the sharing or resources.

Perhaps the insurance policy of greatest concern to many employees is the health insurance policy. The relevant policies from each handbook are the medical insurance policy (which is the same in both the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 handbooks), the health insurance policies of 1999 and 2004 respectively. From 1996-1998, the faculty handbook specified medical insurance plans as providing “protection of faculty members and their families.” “Family” in this context as well is left vague and undefined, and, as was discussed earlier, is juxtaposed with the definition of dependents as being validated by the marriage or birth. In the 1999 publication of the policy, the wording about protection of “employees and their families” has not changed. However, a significant recognition of queer families was built into the policy:

If eligible dependents are to be covered by Agnes Scott College health insurance, dependents MUST be enrolled when the employee is hired, or when dependents first become eligible, i.e. marriage, new birth, or other approved “life style change.” Proof of a “life style change” will have to be provided to the Office of Human Resources in order to apply for coverage.

This evolution from “marriage” and “new birth” to “other approved 'life style change' evidences Human Resources recognition of the narrowness of earlier qualifications of family and dependency. This wording of “life style change” stands in the 2004 articulation of the policy as well. Despite this evolution, other articulations in the same policy leave queer families invisible as before. In the statement on the deduction of premiums, the policy states: “The employee can only cancel or change coverage during annual Open Enrollment, with the exception of certain 'qualifying events,' such as marriage, new birth or dependent child becoming ineligible.” Here, as in the 1996-1998 policy statements, the ways that queer families might qualify are left unarticulated, leaving queer people in committed long-term relationships unclear about the status of their benefits in relation to their partners.

Similarly, the stipulation that the “life style change” must be proven to the Office of Human Resources places a burden on queer families to provide ambiguous legitimate proof of their relationships. The lack of clarity in this policy shows the marginalization of queer people from traditional standards of what constitutes family; while it may be easy for a traditionally married couple to provide a marriage certificate to HR, queer couples (and certain heterosexual unmarried but committed couples) might have to jump through hoops or find means of formally proving their relationship which don't fit their preferences or lifestyles in order to receive benefits.

Ultimately, though Agnes Scott's health insurance policy development in the last 14 years shows important evolution in the recognition of queer families, the full acknowledgement of the variety of family and dependency relationships that can be embodied by queer relationships of all races, classes and national origins are left unarticulated.

Thoughts of Two Queer Agnes Scott Employees

Disclaimer: The two Agnes Scott employees interviewed will remain anonymous. One identifies as a gay male and one identifies as a lesbian.

Both employees state feeling safe about being out at Agnes Scott, and gave the impression of being quite pleased with the policies and benefits in place for faculty and staff currently. One of the interviewees stated that “We have come a long way,” implying that things were not always as inclusive as they are now.

Both employees also felt that Agnes Scott had no policies on the books that perpetuated queer discrimination, though one of the people interviewed felt that the queer culture at Agnes Scott is largely invisible. The employee also mentioned that he is disappointed in Agnes Scott’s shyness over openly welcoming gay and lesbian students, President Kiss’s lack of ever saying the word “lesbian” in a welcoming speech, and the thus far failure to feature an out of the closet queer writer in the Writers’ Festival, something I myself hadn’t realized.

Obviously Agnes Scott still has some distance to cover, but both employees gave the distinct impression of feeling safe at Agnes Scott to be open with their identities, and supported at a policy level.

Interview with Kijua Sanders-McMurtry

Kijua Sanders-McMurtry is one of the most loved student advocates on campus. She has been working at the college since 2006, first as the director of multicultural affairs until 2008 and then as the associate dean of students and the special assistant to the president on diversity, which positions she currently holds. As the special assistant to the president on diversity, she advises the president and her board on diversity issues, “such as trans policy, social class, anything”

She describes the advocacy of typically marginalized groups as being her “passion” for much of her life. This passion no doubt is what has made her a crucial figure in certain movements on campus in the last several years, such as the revamping of the Safe Zone program, the TransGender Task Force, and Affinity, the super-vibrant queer people of color student organization on campus. Because there is no formal queer organization on campus for faculty and staff, and thus no formal mechanism through which we could contact queer faculty and staff, Kijua, as a visible administrative leader and queer advocate on campus, was an important figure for us to turn to in investigating the experiences of queer faculty and staff. Though she can not speak for the queer employees on campus, her position on diversity forums related to Safe Zone and Trans Policy, her characteristic openness, and her experience as an advocate for marginalized groups have made her someone who has had varied contact with queer employees and who has discussed with them important policy issues which affect them.

“What is very interesting is that there are not a lot of queer faculty and staff;” Kijua described the atmosphere on campus for the queer faculty and staff she has talked with as in some ways supportive, but not perfect. We discussed what she means by the word “out,” and she described the position many faculty and staff members are in of not necessarily being closeted, but not disclosing their “queer” status to their students or other people they work with. In other words, while for a few faculty and staff members, being queer may be something they discuss with their classes or co-workers, but for others, being queer is not something they make public at the college. She described her experience as a black women in her first couple years at the college, and the way that black students would often seek her out as an ally or mentor because she was one of the few black faculty, comparing this experience to what queer employees might expect go through if they were to make their queer identities public; some people just might not be interested in that kind of participation in the public life of the college.

One interesting development she brought up in our conversation was the discussion amongst queer faculty and staff members about creating a queer faculty and staff group on campus, which may start out as a social group and could evolve into a group with a particular agenda or policy concerns. This is an exciting development, as currently there are no formal advocacy or support groups on campus for employees of the college. She said that discussions about such a group have been going on for about the last two years, and there are certain faculty and staff members who have a definite interest in the creation of such a group. It's no guarantee yet, but along with growth of the Safe Zone program and the vibrant Trans Policy activism on campus, it's no doubt that the founding of such a group would contribute to the excitement of the ethos surrounding queer advocacy on Agnes Scott's campus in 2010.

Creating A Pack: An Exploration of Support Systems Between ASC Athletes (Soka Chan)

As students at Agnes Scott, we were interested in exploring the support systems that have been created between athletes at Agnes Scott, queer and otherwise. Through multiple interviews we discovered that while queerness is generally associated with sexuality, these athletes had been queered by the Agnes Scott community in other ways. These women share with us their experience with the their dual identities and give us a glimpse into the safe space they have created in order to support one and other. We hope that this project helps listeners to expand their narrow definition of queer and recognize the importance that community has on people from all walks of life.

Perceptions of LGBTQ Issues on Campus by Faculty, Staff, and Students By: ilikesports

Introduction

What is this project about?
This project seeks to provide a snapshot of the campus climate for members of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) community at Agnes Scott College. In addition to finding out the general climate on campus for LGBT people, this project aims to find out whether or not LGBTQ people of color have a sense of community and support on campus. I am paying specific attention to LGBTQ people of color [people of color = black, Latino/Latina people, Asian people, and American Indian people… (folks who are not “white”)] in an attempt to validate their unique experiences that result from being different from most people on campus due to being both LGBTQ and of color. Since Agnes Scott is a traditionally all-women’s college where most of the students and faculty/staff are white and heterosexual (“straight”), it will be interesting to see how students of color and faculty/staff view issues of race and ethnicity, sexual identity (aka “sexual orientation”; whether or not someone is gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, etc.), and gender identity (whether someone identifies themself as woman, man, transgender, or not labeling themself with any gender).

How did you get your information?
To take the “snapshot” of the current climate for LGBTQ people on campus, I made two online surveys (one for students of color, and one for faculty/staff of all races) and personally e-mailed them out to current students of color, faculty, and staff that I know, asking if they could fill out the survey. The main goal of the surveys was to gather students of color and faculty/staff views of LGBTQ issues on campus. I made sure to let everyone know that the survey was completely anonymous (that is, I don’t know who filled out the survey), that I wouldn’t think that someone was lesbian, gay, and/or transgender just because they took the survey, and that it would only be used for this class project. Also, I asked the students of color who received the survey to pass the survey on to their friends of color on campus by e-mail, and I asked faculty and staff to pass the survey on to their coworkers on campus. Since I don’t personally know every student of color on campus or every faculty/staff member on campus, I also asked some student groups and college departments to send out the surveys to their members. Eventually, one of the offices sent the survey out to all students and all faculty/staff members on campus, so everyone on campus got the survey!

I just scrolled down, and this blog post is super-long. Do I have to read the whole thing?
No; you don’t have to read the whole thing and/or read it in any particular order. You can read only the answers to questions that interest you the most. (Also, much of the data is on graphs to make it less wordy.)

Here’s the outline of this blog post:
Introduction
-What is this project about?
-How did you get your information?
-I just scrolled down, and this blog post is super-long. Do I have to read the whole thing?
Survey information
-What questions did you have in the surveys?
-----Students of Color Survey Questions
-----Faculty/Staff Survey Questions
-Why did you choose those questions?
-I’m confused; why did you only survey students of color? Did any white students complete the survey?
-Well, why did you let white faculty and staff take the faculty/staff survey? Why not focus only on the perspectives of faculty/staff of color so it’s the same as the student survey?
Students of Color Survey Findings
-What can you tell me about the students of color who took your survey?
- How comfortable do students of color feel on campus?
- Do students of color believe that LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff are treated fairly on campus?
- Are students of color engaging with the LGBTQ community?
- How do students of color view the LGBTQ people of color community?
- What do students of color think should be done to help LGBTQ people of color feel included on campus?
Faculty/Staff Survey Findings
- What can you tell me about the faculty and staff members who took your survey?
- How comfortable do faculty and staff members feel on campus?
- Do faculty and staff members believe that LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff are treated fairly on campus?
- Are faculty and staff members engaging with the LGBTQ community?
- How do faculty and staff members view the LGBTQ people of color community?
- What do faculty and staff members think should be done to help LGBTQ people of color feel included on campus?
Conclusion
-Were there any common views that you noticed in both the students of color survey and the faculty/staff survey?

Survey information

What questions did you have in the surveys?
The students of color survey and the faculty/staff survey both had ten (10) questions. Some of the questions overlap, but some of them are different, as shown in the survey questions below:

Students of Color Survey
Please answer the following demographic questions:

1. What is your current year?
First-year
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Prefer not to answer

2. What is your race/ethnicity? PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Asian
American Indian
Black
Latina/Latino
White
Other (please specify)
Prefer not to answer

3. What is your sexual identity? PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Lesbian
Gay
Queer
Questioning
Other (please specify)
Prefer not to answer

4. What is your gender identity? PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Woman
Man
Transgender
Genderqueer
Prefer not to answer

Please answer the following question about how welcome and/or unwelcome you feel on campus:

5. Please rate how welcome and/or comfortable you feel on campus based on your race/ethnicity, sexual identity, and/or gender identity.
1. Not comfortable at all
2. A little comfortable
3. Comfortable
4. Very comfortable
5. Extremely comfortable
6. N/A and/or prefer not to answer

Please answer the following questions about how you perceive LGBTQ issues on campus:

6. Do you feel that LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff are treated fairly on campus?
Yes
Somewhat
No
~If you want to elaborate, then please explain your response below.

7. Have you attended an on-campus event that focuses on the LGBTQ community? Are you a member of an LGBTQ organization on campus?

Have attended an on-campus event that focuses on the LGBTQ community
Am a member of an on-campus LGBTQ organization

Yes
No

8. Do you feel that there is a sense of community among LGBTQ faculty/ staff/ students of color on-campus?
Sense of community among LGBTQ students?
Sense of community among LGBTQ staff?
Sense of community among LGBTQ faculty?

Yes
Somewhat
No
~If you want to elaborate, then please explain your response below.

9. Do you think that LGBTQ people of color face different challenges than LGBTQ people who are white?
Yes
Maybe
No
~ If you want to elaborate, then please explain your response below.

10. What else could be done on campus to help LGBTQ people of color feel included? Is there anything else you would like to share?

Faculty/Staff Survey
Please answer the following demographic questions:

1. Are you a faculty member or a staff member?
Faculty
Staff
Prefer not to answer

2. How long have you been at Agnes Scott?
0 - 5 years
5 – 10 years
10 – 15 years
15 - 20 years
20 – 25 years
25+ years
Prefer not to answer

3. What is your race/ethnicity? PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Asian
American Indian
Black
Latina/Latino
White
Other (please specify)
Prefer not to answer

4. What is your sexual identity? PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Lesbian
Gay
Queer
Questioning
Other (please specify)
Prefer not to answer

5. What is your gender identity? PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Woman
Man
Transgender
Genderqueer
Prefer not to answer

Please answer the following question about how welcome and/or unwelcome you feel on campus:

6. Please rate how welcome and/or comfortable you feel on campus based on your race/ethnicity, sexual identity, and/or gender identity.
1. Not comfortable at all
2. A little comfortable
3. Comfortable
4. Very comfortable
5. Extremely comfortable
6. Prefer not to answer

Please answer the following question about your engagement with the LGBTQ community on-campus:

7. Have you attended an on-campus event that focuses on the LGBTQ community? Are you a member of an on-campus organization or committee on campus that addresses LGBTQ issues? Have you attended Safe Zone trainings?

Have attended an on-campus event that focuses on the LGBTQ community
Am a member of an on-campus LGBTQ organization
Have attended a Safe Zone Training
Have attended a Safe Zone Train-the-Trainer facilitation session

Yes
No
Prefer not to answer

Please answer the following question about how you perceive LGBTQ issues on campus:

8. Have you noticed a change over the years in how LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff are treated on campus?

Students
Faculty
Staff

Noticed positive changes in treatment
Noticed no changes in treatment
Noticed negative changes in treatment
~If you want to elaborate, then please explain your response below.

Please answer the following questions about your perceptions of the LGBTQ community of color (including students, faculty, and staff) on campus:

9. Do you feel that there is a sense of community among LGBTQ faculty/ staff/ students of color on-campus?

Sense of community among LGBTQ students?
Sense of community among LGBTQ staff?
Sense of community among LGBTQ faculty?

Yes
Somewhat
No
~If you want to elaborate, then please explain your response below.

10. Do you think that LGBTQ people of color face different challenges than LGBTQ people who are white? What else could be done on campus to help LGBTQ people of color feel included? Is there anything else you would like to share?

Yes
Maybe
No
~ If you want to elaborate, then please explain your response below:

Why did you choose those questions?
I included basic demographic (that is, “who are you?”/ “tell me about yourself”) questions at the beginning of both surveys. I felt that this would be important so that I would have an idea of 1) who was taking the survey and 2) so I could get an idea of how many people of color, (white) LGBTQ people, and LGBTQ people of color were taking the survey. Also, I asked both students of color and faculty/staff a question that allowed them to say how comfortable they feel on-campus due to different parts of their identity (race/ethnicity, sexual identity, and gender identity). The questions at the end of both surveys focus specifically on how students of color, faculty, and staff view the challenges facing LGBTQ people of color on campus and the support/community system for LGBTQ people of color on campus.

Also, I asked both students of color and faculty/staff about the treatment of LGBTQ people on campus. However, I asked the faculty/staff the question in a way that allowed them to give their view of how treatment of LGBTQ people has changed over time, which I thought was important since faculty/staff tend to be at a college for a much longer time span than students (who are usually only at a campus for around four years). Similarly, I asked both students of color and faculty/staff about their attendance at LGBTQ-focused events/programs to try to measure how much campus community members were choosing to engage in LGBTQ issues in their free time. However, I also asked faculty/staff to share if they had attended a Safe Zone training session (this is a program that provides basic information/resources related to the LGBTQ community) on campus, and if they had chosen to become trained as a Safe Zone program teacher to see how engaged they were in LGBTQ issues.

Many of the questions in the later half of the survey allowed the person taking the survey to type out a response if they wanted to say more. Also, many of the responses allowed the survey takers to choose not to answer a question if they did not want to answer it. I felt that it was important to allow people to share as much or as little as they felt like sharing so that people would not feel either forced or constrained by the survey format.

I’m confused; why did you only survey students of color? Did any white students complete the survey?
I chose to only target students of color because I feel that their voices tend to be overlooked generally in society, and even more when it comes to LGBTQ issues. Also, while this class focuses broadly on queer theory, it also aims to incorporate the perspectives of people of color (who are often left out of queer theory and LGBTQ discussions). It is important to point out that my survey that was sent to students clearly stated that the project was about “Perceptions of LGBTQ Issues on Campus by Students of Color,” and that the purpose of this survey was to “gauge how students of color perceive LGBTQ issues on campus.”

A significant number of white students (approximately 50) took my survey. However, I decided to stay dedicated to my original vision of focusing on the perspectives of students of color, and I chose to only include the responses of students of color in the final project.

I also feel that it is important to point out that I monitored the survey closely for the six days that it was open, and noticed some interesting, yet troubling things. When the survey was first opened for student participation, it was almost exclusively students of color taking the survey. However, as word-of-mouth and e-mail forwarding spread word of the survey, large numbers of white students began taking the survey. While this increased participation was valuable and exciting, soon white students’ participation began to take over the survey, which drastically changed the survey results, and covered up the perspectives of the students of color (who, I will repeat, are the focus of this survey). More troubling, however, was the racism that was explicitly present in some of the white students’ write-in responses. Since the original scope and goal of this project was to seek out and concentrate on the perspectives of students of color, it became clear that removing the white responses would be the best way to complete this project as I had originally intended it.

Well, why did you let white faculty and staff take the faculty/staff survey? Why not focus only on the perspectives of faculty/staff of color?
Since the actions of faculty and staff control so much of the campus (classroom environment, student affairs, etc.), I felt it was necessary to try to get as many faculty/staff as possible to take the survey, and, obviously, that includes white faculty/staff. Also, from a very practical view, the overwhelming majority of the faculty is white. If I had only targeted faculty of color for the faculty/staff survey, there would have been probably less than ten possible responses. While I’m not as able to guess at the number of staff that are both people of color and would have received the survey through the e-mail forwarding system that I talked about earlier, I would guess that that number is small, too. Bottom line: It wasn’t my original goal to do a faculty/staff of color-only survey; also, there aren’t enough faculty/staff of color at Agnes Scott to have made doing that a practical idea.

Students of Color Survey Findings

What can you tell me about the students of color who took your survey?

84 students of color started the survey, and 73 of them completed it. Most of the students who took the survey were either seniors (27), sophomores (20), or first-years (23). The majority of the students racially/ethnically identified themselves as black (57); the rest of the students identified as Asian (16), multiracial (8), Latina/Latino (6), American Indian, (3), and/or Haitian (1).

When answering how they identified their sexual identity, most of the students said that they were heterosexual (65); the rest of the students identified themselves as bisexual (6), lesbian (6), queer (5), questioning (4), and/or other (3). Two of the students who indentified as “other” wrote in pansexual.

For gender identity, the vast majority of the students identified themselves as women (79); however, one student identified as a man, another student identified as genderqueer, and a third student marked “other” and stated a refusal to identify as any gender.

How comfortable do students of color feel on campus?

Most students of color said that when considering their race/ethnicity they feel either “comfortable” (25), “very comfortable” (17), or “extremely comfortable” (27). However, 12 students indicated that they feel “a little comfortable” and 1 student selected “not comfortable at all.” This means that although 69 students feel comfortable and/or more than comfortable at Agnes Scott, there are still 38 students who feel comfortable and/or less than comfortable at Agnes Scott due to their race/ethnicity.

In terms of sexual identity, many students responded that they feel either “extremely comfortable” (36) or “very comfortable” (21). 17 students said that they feel “comfortable.” However, 6 students said that they feel “a little comfortable” and 2 students said that they feel “not comfortable at all.”

There was a lot lower “comfort” rating to the question of gender identity than I was expecting, (especially considering that Agnes Scott is historically a women’s college and that the school calls itself “The World for Women.”) While 96% of respondents identified as “women” in the earlier question, only 57% stated that they feel “extremely comfortable” (46 students) in their gender identity at the school, (although another 21 students did say that they feel “very comfortable” at Agnes.) Also, 1 student feels “not comfortable at all,” 3 students only feel “a little comfortable,” and 9 students feel “comfortable.”

Do students of color believe that LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff are treated fairly on campus?

Most students of color (80%) believe that LGBTQ students are treated fairly on campus. However, it is very interesting that this number drops seven points to 73% of students believing that LGBTQ faculty are treated fairly, and drops almost ten points more to only 64% of students believing that LGBTQ staff are treated fairly. (Although it must be noted that more students are also responding with “somewhat” as the “yes” responses decline. Very few students seem to believe that LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff are treated unfairly on campus.)

Also, many students commented that LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff, for the most part, seem to be receiving support from the college administration (through speakers, programs, Safe Zone initiatives, transgender initiatives) and the greater campus community (which is described as “accepting” and “open” in some write-in answers).

Are students of color engaging with the LGBTQ community?

A slight majority of students of color (57%) have attended a program or event that focuses on the LGBTQ community. Also, although 23 students of color identified themselves as LGBTQ in the earlier question, only 14 students indicated that they were members of an LGBTQ organization on campus. (However, it should be noted that 10 people skipped this question, which could explain the gap.)

How do students of color view the LGBTQ people of color community?

Most students of color who wrote-in answers said it was hard to know if there was community among the LGBTQ faculty and staff of color. Additionally, some students expressed that while there was an active community among the LGBTQ students of color, it seemed as though the sense of unity was exclusive, clique-ish, and less welcoming to others.

77% of students stated that LGBTQ people of color face different challenges than LGBTQ people who are white. The overwhelming majority of the write-in responses expressed that this was due to issues surrounding LGBTQ acceptance/rejection in communities of color, culture, intersectionality, religion, white privilege, and racism.

What do students of color think should be done to help LGBTQ people of color feel included on campus?

Several students suggested in the write-in answers that the campus needs to hold more programs discussing the unique challenges of LGBTQ people of color, including incorporating discussion about those unique challenges in the Safe Zone training. Also, multiple students positively mentioned the work that the Office of Intercultural Affairs and the student organization Affinity (a group for LGBTQ people of color) have done in raising awareness and supporting LGBTQ people of color. Some students mentioned the need for LGBTQ people of color to work with the predominantly-white LGBTQ group on campus (Collective) and other ethnicity/race-focused groups on campus in order to build solidarity. Also, students mentioned the need to combat slurs and insensitivity on campus, and work with offices like the Admissions Office who may be reluctant to acknowledge the existence of the LGBTQ community on campus.

Faculty/Staff Survey Findings

What can you tell me about the faculty and staff members who took your survey?

74 faculty and staff members started the survey, and 67 finished it. 29 people identified themselves as faculty members, and 43 people identified themselves as staff members. Most of those surveyed said that they have been at Agnes Scott for either 0-5 years (33), 5-10 years (19), or 10-15 years (12); however, eight other faculty and staff members said that they have been at Agnes for a longer period of time. The vast majority of faculty and staff members surveyed were white (57), with 13 other people who identified as either black (10), Latina/Latino (2), or Asian (1). Most of the faculty/staff members identified as heterosexual (59); however, 17 people identified as bisexual (3), lesbian (4), gay (6), or queer (4). In identifying their gender identity, 61 people identified as women, 12 people identified as men, 1 person identified as transgender, and 1 person identified as genderqueer.

How comfortable do faculty and staff members feel on campus?

When compared to the students, the faculty and staff members seem to be more comfortable; however, there are still people in the faculty/staff survey who have indicated that they are “not comfortable at all” and/or “a little comfortable” when it comes to their race/ethnicity, gender identity, and/or sexual identity.

Are faculty and staff members engaging with the LGBTQ community?

It is concerning that the percentage of faculty and staff who have been Safe Zone trained is only 50%, especially since faculty and staff work with many students each day.

Do faculty and staff members believe that the treatment of LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff has changed over the years?

While it is great that things seem to have not gotten worse for LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff, it is interesting that the majority of faculty/staff have not noticed any changes in the treatment of LGBTQ faculty and staff over the years. Also, a slight majority seems to believe that treatment of LGBTQ students has improved over the years. Many of the write-in responses mention the belief that the Safe Zone program has led to a positive difference in campus climate around LGBTQ issues (namely, raised awareness and acceptance); however, other comments seem to suggest that the positive differences seem to only affect individuals and not the whole LGBTQ group. Also, multiple responses mention discrimination against LGBTQ staff, specifically the problem of being overlooked for promotions and other opportunities to aid professional advancement. Survey takers also mentioned institutional problems like inadequate healthcare plans for transgender people. Many responses mentioned not noticing anyone on campus being verbally and/or physically harassed for being LGBTQ and/or holding hands with a same-sex partner.

How do faculty and staff members view the LGBTQ people of color community?

Most faculty and staff members acknowleged the existence of a community among LGBTQ students of color; however, many survey takers expressed in their written responses an inability to judge to the existence of a similar community among LGBTQ faculty and staff of color. Many write-in responses also stated to not interpret their selection of the “somewhat” option as an actual answer, but to interpret it as a neutral reply.

Also, a majority of faculty members (67%) acknowledged that LGBTQ people of color face different challenges than white LGBTQ people. Many of the write-in responses mentioned intersectionality. Other responses expressed a belief that there were differences for LGBTQ people of color, and expressed a desire for Safe Zone and campus events to incorporate that discussion so that more learning/awareness about those differences in experience can take place.

What do faculty and staff members think should be done to help LGBTQ people of color feel included on campus?

Many responses expressed an appreciation for the work that groups like Affinity and the Office of Intercultural Affairs have done in raising awareness of the experiences of LGBTQ people of color. Multiple answers stated that Safe Zone and other faculty workshops need to incorporate more information about the differences in experiences of LGBTQ people of color. The need for cross-curriculum integration of cross-cultural LGBTQ issues, more funding for student organizations, consistent offerings of queer theory courses, and a focus on intersectionality and personal stories was also suggested.

Conclusion

Were there any common perceptions that you noticed in both the students of color survey and the faculty/staff survey?

Yes; while there were some offensive, insensitive comments in the write-in responses of both the students of color survey and the faculty/staff survey, that kind of sentiment was few and far between. The vast majority of students of color and faculty/staff surveyed seemed tolerant, if not outright accepting and supportive, of the LGBTQ community on campus. Also, there seemed to be a sense of pride in the fact that Agnes Scott College has been taking steps to create a safe space on campus for LGBTQ students. However, in both surveys it was acknowledged that the campus needs to do a better job of supporting LGBTQ faculty and (especially) staff, and LGBTQ students of color through both increasing educational/intercultural programming and making institutional changes to back up the college’s rhetoric about LGBTQ acceptance.

Trans Policy and Visibility at Agnes Scott College

Brought to you by ALEXA and honeyandginseng!

For our archival project, we chose to examine Agnes Scott's Transgender Policy and trans visibility in hopes of better understanding steps Agnes has taken to make our campus trans-friendly and improvements that can still be made in order to truly create a safe space for trans students. However, after reading past and present Student Handbooks, we found Agnes Scott does not have a trans policy. Unsure of where to begin, we scheduled interviews with staff from the Wellness Center, Residence Life, the Office of the Registrar, Athletics, the Office of Intercultural Affairs; along with Kijua Sanders-McMurtry, Associate Dean of Students and Special Assistant to the President on Diversity.

Through this series of interviews, we uncovered the numerous factors preventing an official trans policy to be published and instated. To our surprise, we found that in many ways an unofficial trans policy exists among the handful of administrators, faculty, staff members and students who promote respect and understanding, show support and continuously strive to make a place for trans students at Agnes Scott.

While our project avoids excluding groups in our discussion of transgender individuals, we must keep in mind that in the context of Agnes Scott, trans men (individuals who identify as a men but were not born male) have the most visibility of trans folks on our campus. We speak only on behalf of our campus.

We compiled our findings into an exciting and accessible pamphlet, downloadable here!

Queer People of Color Visibility at Agnes Scott

Through personal reflection and interviews with alums and current students I present three podcasts that investigate how queer people of color established community before after and during their time at Agnes Scott. In our class many of the lenses through which we analyzed queerness involved persons who had more than one identity that was outside the norm. In our class we have discussed how queering queerness or quaring can mean losing visibility because queerness can be normative. However, at Agnes Scott queering a women's college has provided many safe spaces to create visibility, community and dialog.

Episode 1: The Past

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BxOIcwMq1t_7NDUyZjQzZTEtOTdiMi00MjEwLWEwNmMtMWU4ZTEwZDJmY2Jl&hl=en

Episode 2: The Now

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BxOIcwMq1t_7YmJmNGNlZjItNzg0My00NmE3LThmY2MtNjI0YzNlMjEzMzY1&hl=en

Episode 3: Analysis

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BxOIcwMq1t_7NjhlYjBhOGItYWE5OS00Y2U0LWFmMGItMGFhODMzOTE3N2Q4&hl=en

Butch Visibility at Agnes Scott College - CaptainPeanut and Reverend Pussycat

These videos explain the findings of our project on butch visibility at Agnes Scott. To conduct our research, we sent out a survey to Agnes Scott students, asking questions about their definitions of the word "butch," what a butch person looks like, and what (if any) connotations the term carries. Thirty-one students responded to the survey. While this is a fairly small number of people, we felt as though the answers they gave us were varied enough to provide us with a somewhat accurate depiction of the opinions of ASC students as a whole. We also looked into the visibility and accessibility of books in the ASC library centered around "butch". To do this, we spoke with a librarian and browsed the shelves of the library.
This project is relevant to queer theory because it addresses homonormative ideas of how looking or acting a certain way almost automatically earns someone a label (this is something we have discussed in class). The project also looks at how butch individuals are queered in the Agnes Scott community.