Running Head: A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

Tyler Sanders
EDLD 6890:
A History of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identified College Students
Western Michigan University

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

A History of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identified College Students

Today a national surveys suggests that 7.2 percent of college students identify within the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (Marine, 2011). While this
population may have always been present on college and university campuses, this data is
coming further into the spotlight. To understand the significance of this population, this
literature review analyzes the history of the LGBT movement dating back to the 1940s and
explores current trends and culture. While it is difficult to synthesize all of the history of
coming-out resistance narratives, there is historical context in which to look at the relevance of
LGBT culture within the field of student affairs (Mills, 2005). Through reviewing the
movements in history, an analysis of student affairs principles that have evolved due to the
history of the LGBT community will be provided. As Mills (2005) discusses, there is a lack of
transgender reference seen in research and thus some of the history will not include this part of
the community throughout this literature review. However, it is recommended that further
research is done on the transgender communitys history and presence on college campuses in
the past.
Historical Relevance
There have been timely changes to how LGBT students have been identified and treated
on campuses and universities (Dilley, 2002). As student affairs professionals, it is important to
understand how historically, different colleges created their own standard of treatments and
services for students of certain demographics, specifically identifying in the LGBT community.
Known as the first time that the LGBT community became cohesive, the Stonewell riots put fire
in the hearts of the community. In June of 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in
New York City, tensions became high between the police and gay residents that moved into a

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

violent demonstration (Marine, 2011). As the days passed the number of protestors increased and
started what we know as the LGBT liberation movement.
In a higher education setting, Dilley (2002) breaks down four different eras of reactions
from administrators through the last seventy years. Ranging from intolerance to appreciation,
colleges and universities currently have a broad range of reactions to the identities of this
community and it is important to understand the climates and attitudes of those who were
involved (Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2008). Using Dilleys (2002) four types of reactions
(expulsion, sanctions and interventions, surveillance, and understanding as a foundation); the
research finds that each of these reactions created positive repercussions in the LGBT
community.
Expulsion
The 1940s and 1950s were marked with repressive and isolated states for homosexuals
(Marine, 2011). Homosexuality was not discussed among the general population let alone the
college and university community. Marine (2011) outlined multiple student and adult
perspectives who shared moments of having to remain closeted, to act as a heterosexual, and
even date or marry individuals of the opposite sex. On college and university campuses, the time
before the Stonewall riots marked a period in history where LGBT students were being pressured
into staying in the closet in fear of being expelled for suspected homosexual relations (Dilley,
2002). According to Waller, homosexuality was a deviant, contagious, and dangerous disease
and similar messages were shared within the college community which led to many students
being expelled (Dilley, 2002a, 2002b; Faderman, 1991; MacKay, 1992, Waller, as cited in
Tierney & Dilley, 1998, p. 51, as cited in Renn, 2010). With the attitude of homosexuality

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

resulting in negative consequences that could affect those within proximity, students and staff
reacted in a wide range of different ways.
As studies remind us, today there is still a positive connotation to traditional sex roles
and a negative attitude towards homosexuality (Herek, 1988; Kerns & Fine, 1994; Kurdek, 1988;
Lieback & Friedman, 1985; Whitney, 1987 as cited in Hinriches & Rosenberg, 2005). This
traditional mindset was established as students during this time period could be expelled on the
grounds of engaging in homosexual conduct, suspicion of such conduct, or even being friends or
friendly with suspected parties (Dilley, 2002). In reaction to this, students began to meet in
semiprivate locations, and informal networks were hidden on college campuses to connect the
LGBT student population (Beemyn, 2003). An example of this is the postings for constant
patrolling of the College of Liberal Arts restroom at Cornell, based on its popularity as a
meeting locale (Beemyn, 2003). Because of this dichotomy between colleges and the students,
witch hunts became a normalized practice to neutralize the threat of heterosexuals being pulled
into the temptations and sin of homosexuality (Dilley, 2002). Although these actions seem unjust
towards a minority population, at the time, this was a regular practice and progress would take
place in the coming decades.
Sanctions and Interventions
As the LGBT community began to find ways to navigate this new landscape, the 1950s
led colleges to focus on the elimination of such meeting spaces for men to meet and have
relations. Among these efforts, colleges developed sting operations used to catch students in the
act of affirming or being a part of the homosexual culture (Dilley, 2002). The former dean of
students at the University of Missouri indicated that a common practice in the search for
deviants was to have university personnel follow suspects in cars to watch their actions and

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

check appropriateness (Dilley, 2002). While some institutions had moved away from the
surveillance approach, there was still a part of the community that believed that homosexuality
was a medical diagnosis (DAugelli, 2002). Students that could be diagnosed by university staff
or faculty for their incorrect or sinful actions would be set up with treatment or sent to therapy
for their homosexuality (Dilley, 2002). This diagnostic process is still seen in some of the
institutions around the country, including some religiously affiliated institutions. Some colleges
and universities in the 1950s, would even hold back certificates or degrees until the students
sought professional help or therapy (Dilley, 2002). Other institutions would sanction students to
move out of residence halls because roommates complained about sexuality (Beemyn, 2003).
While colleges and universities were oppressing members of the LGBT community, on a
national scale, allies and members of the LGBT community were gathering in New York to get
the LGBT conversation moving in a forward direction (Marine, 2011).
Age of Conversation
Outside of colleges and universities, the nation started to react to the Stonewall riots and
the beginning of discussions of LGBT rights. These protests and debates would lead to court
cases on discrimination within the classroom and workplace, and rights to funding for LGBT
supportive outlets (Dilley, 2002). LGBT student communities were starting to come out of
hiding, but were seeing the pressures of oppression from their community and even individuals
within universities. As openness became a more popular trend among the student population,
students who identified with the LGBT community started to become visible in organizational
leadership roles on campus in student staff positions, organizational executive board members,
and faculty or staff positions (Dilley, 2002).

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

As the conversation about the LGBT community began, LGBT student organizations
started to explore why their organizations were created and the intent of each of their missions.
For instance, many of the Student Homophile Leagues started to question their mission and how
to meet the needs of their organization and students (Beemyn, 2003). Laytons (1968) papers
described one way that organizations started to program with the use of zaps as sessions at
which openly homosexual people would answer students questions, trying to raise public
consciousness about homosexuality (as cited in Beemyn, 2003). To increase visibility of the
LGBT community, these presentations occurred in any space with an audience that would listen
including classrooms, meetings, and public settings, as an education tool to the university
community and recruitment opportunity for the student organization that supported or presented
the program (Beemyn, 2003). This type of program is a practice that continues today, and due to
the fact that positive contact with individuals in the LGBT community dispel negative
impressions, now includes transgender individuals as well (Hansen, 1982; Herek, 1988; Lance,
1987; Hillham, San Miguel, & Kellogg, 1976 as cited in Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2008).
The Past Decade- A Recent History
As the LGBT community evaluates what the future holds, the most recent past is
effecting the future more than ever with the generational gap between those growing up in the
1950s versus those growing up today gets even larger (Russell & Bohan, 2005). The first student
LGBT student organization and movement occurred within the last fifty years, meaning that
individuals who had experienced expulsions and deep oppression now work alongside
individuals who have only seen the more positive, progress of the last decade. According to
Lipkas (2010a) study, 65 percent of college freshmen now support gay marriage. Statistics like
this and others, the current climate, and new programs have supported the progress being made,

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

but also recognizes there is much room for growth. With the political media moving LGBT
issues into the spotlight more than ever, youth have a different perspective on their identity than
adults with more historical perspective (Russell & Bohan, 2005). To be successful as a
community, adults and youth must be able to bridge the gap with their similarities and mutual
goals for the future.
Student Homophile League
While the Stonewall riots are often associated with the beginning of progress for the
LGBT community, in the fall of 1965 Columbia University in New York City, New York
admitted a student that led the LGBT charge in the college community, Stephen Donaldson.
Donaldson was involved in the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest organizations to defend
LGBT rights (Beemyn, 2003). During the next year, Donaldson and other members of the LGBT
community faced the challenge of remaining anonymous while trying to get university
recognition for a Student Homophile League (SHL) student organization (Beemyn, 2003). A
requirement to be recognized as an organization was that the group submitted a roster of its
members, but after finding a loophole in registration, Donaldson was able to charter the Student
Homophile League on April 19, 1967 (Beemyn, 2003). After receiving media coverage from the
student press, the dean of the college and director of counseling services took an oppositional
stance to the organizations existence (Beemyn, 2003). With the support of the leagues advisor,
the SHL was able to stop the Columbia administration from removing the organization status
(Beemyn, 2003).
Cornell University in Ithica, New York, students followed suite in the process of creating
a student support group for the LGBT community. After having informal meetings in certain
locations, Cornells SHL took the step required by the university to become a student

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

organization. Similar to Columbias struggles, the Cornell students had issues with anonymity
which was a challenge for becoming an organization and recruiting members (Beemyn, 2003).
After many failed attempts, on May 14, 1968, the second charter for a SHL was obtained at
Cornell University (Beemyn, 2003). For the first time at Cornell University, the universitys
Scheduling, Coordination, and Activities Review Board did not require the organization to
submit the names of the students in the group (Beemyn, 2003). This small action was the first
movement of universities creating spaces and policies to support the LGBT community.
In the early days of the SHL, recruitment and retention was difficult for each of the
charter organizations. One example of aid from the ally community was seen through
heterosexual support through membership in the organization, which allowed non-heterosexual
students were able to join without being placed on the LGBT spectrum (Beemyn, 2003). In
December 1968, the mix of approximately fifty percent heterosexual and fifty percent nonheterosexual student involvement allowed the organization to not have a specific label for
students sexual identity as a part of the organization. Once this fact was published in the
campus newspaper, the league was able to recruit approximately twenty-five members the
following academic year (Beemyn, 2003). Outside of the university community, students and
organizations felt the pressures of society and exclusion from meeting in public spaces after
feeling harassment from customers and business employees and managers (Beemyn, 2003).
Although the LGBT student community had started to organize, there was a bevy of challenges
to be faced that would be part of the history of the proud organizations alive on campuses today.
Gay Liberation Front
As court disputes became public, student groups became more focused on becoming
activists and liberators. Moving away from the SHL, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) planned

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

sit-ins, boycotts, and public displays in attempts to move the conversation forward alongside
conversations including women and people of color (Beemyn, 2003). By 1971, the GLF was
composed of 175 college and university gay student organizations nationwide (Beemyn, 2003).
While each charter organization did not focus on the same mission or gay liberation, the humble
beginnings in Columbia and Cornell had sparked the movement. Not only was there student
activism, but the openness of the gay community became more relevant as non-students felt the
safeness that was being created and larger political movements were occurring.
Student Leadership
An example of students learning outcomes can be observed in the student leadership
experience for students in the LGBT community. According to Renns (2007) research, a
recurring pattern and trend for development was created within LGBT student community. As
seen in Figure 1, students become more out in a variety of different ways including becoming
involved or creating an LGBT student group, having a mentor, or becoming an advocate (Renn,
2007). Starting off from recruitment in creating or being part of a LGBT friendly space, an
individual works through the cycle to become more aware of their identity and a stakeholder in
the community. By becoming a member of an organization, students start to process their
coming out with various steps and supporting individuals. With the support of sponsors or
mentors, students are able to find their stake in the LGBT community to become successful
members and possibly activists. Student affairs professionals act as those sponsors and mentors
who assist in the promotion of coming out or becoming more active in the community.

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

10

Figure 1: Renns (2007) Involvement and Identity System

Current Attitude/Climate
Research dating back to the 1960s has assessed the campus climate throughout the
decades for various student demographics. This research creates a scene into which climate has
come from and where it is going. According to a 1990 survey, 50% (of college freshmen)
reported that they felt gay men were disgusting and 30% reported that they would prefer to go to
college with only heterosexuals (DAugelli & Rose, 1990, as cited in Nelson & Shirley, 1997).
This prejudice has clearly declined, compared to the climate of the sixties, however research
continues to be consistent that statistically men have significantly more negative perspective
towards LGBT culture than women (Chng & Moore, 1991; DAugelli & Rose, 1990; Herek,
1988; Kite, 1984; Price, 1982; Whitley, 1990; Young et al., 1991, as cited in Nelson & Krieger,
1997). While the heterosexual population was represented in this data, it is important to analyze
the attitudes of the LGBT community members in the current environment.

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

11

Although there has been progress in the political and higher education front, student
members of the LGBT community often face more discrimination compared to heterosexual
peers and thus see the campus climate as hostile and chilly (Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker &
Robinson-Keilig, 2004, p. 1168; Garvey & Inkelas, 2012). With members of the LGBT
community still feeling this way, it is important to find ways to improve the campus climate.
Herek (1986) suggested that sexual identity disclosure may be a way to reduce homophobia as
13% of respondents stated that after seeing this disclosure they did not realize how normal
these individuals are (Nelson & Krieger, 1997). Programming efforts such as panels, Safe On
Campus trainings, and various educational opportunities serve as a bridge to educating those who
hold a negative mindset towards the community as a whole.
Similar to previous research findings dating back to 1961, there appears to be statistical
data that supports the theory that climates are not campus specific (Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2008).
According to Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, and Robinson-Keilig (2004), campus and student
attitudes were varied based on different subcultures and personal characteristics for each
individual. While there are apparent breakdowns of positive and negative attitudes, LGBT
students showed higher satisfaction with faculty and staff consistent with strong predictors of
these students interacting with faculty regarding coursework or in mentorship roles (Garvey &
Inkelas, 2012). Within the faculty and staff group, Garvey and Inkelas (2012) found significant
data differences in terms of gender of faculty showing that LGBT students have higher
satisfaction and comfort with females. One of the most important points of research with the
climate is marked by the fact that student affairs staff members show significantly more support
of the LGBT community (Brown et. al, 2004). As a profession, student affairs must start a

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

12

trickledown effect in supporting our LGBT or minority student populations to help create move
inclusive and supportive climates on college campuses.
Academic and Research Perspectives
As the idea of coming out became a relevant term, scholars became interested in
understanding this process and development. The late 1970s and 1980s gave way to a several
different theories trying to describe this identity in a higher educational setting for example
Cass, 1979, 1984; DAugelli, 1994; Fassinger, 1991; Savin-Williams, 1988,
1990; Troiden, 1979, 1988 (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). Although these theories were
composed of small sample sizes, each one that was developed had similar foundations with
varying perspectives on similar principles of questioning heterosexuality and the exploration that
follows (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). As stated by Bilodeau and Renn (2005), Differences among
the stage models illustrate the difficulty of using only one model to understand a complex
psychosocial process (p. 26). While this was only a base of the wealth of knowledge available,
the LGBT community within higher education had begun to become relevant in the field, but this
would only be the beginning.
As a result of the support of student and academic affairs to the LGBT student
community, research has shown these students being successful within the university and college
system. As an example to this support, Gay male students exhibited higher grade point
averages, saw their academic work as more important, were more likely to report the presence of
a close faculty member or administrator, and were more active participants in college activities
(except athletics) than similarly situated heterosexual male students (Carpenter, 2009, p. 702).
Within organizational involvement, sexual minority males and females find more importance in
activities like the arts and politics compared to heterosexual students (Carpenter, 2009). Overall,

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

13

Carpenters (2009) research found that sexual minority students have different outcomes than
heterosexual counterparts. While the LGBT community appears to be becoming successful and
learning during their university experience, they are experiencing it in a different way.
Present Practices and Interventions
While there are services and efforts being made for the LGBT community within higher
education, this is an ongoing process and evolving services are required. Previous segments of
this analysis have discussed some of the programs that are currently available to the community.
Within the academic community, Renn (2010) calls for more research within queer theory and
the LGBT community to use high quality methods to improve reliability and validity by
expanding sample size and using combination of methods. As professionals working with
students, it is important to look at the implication of theory and to recognize the self-work
required of personal identity development (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). Students do not only rely
on the support system that they create in the various environments, but professionals can use
interventions and reflections to help develop methods of creating and exploring their personal
identity. Dilley (2002) also discussed how theory can be put into practice, but pointed out the
importance of not specifically looking at one theory of stages, but understanding the fluidity of
each as a whole in LGBT student theory. Students within the LGBT community may not
necessarily be in a specific stage, but move through each of the theories and stages in their own
way.
While the research continues, Britzman (2005) still questions the fear of normalcy to be
explored in queer pedagogy. Even among colleagues and scholars, Britzman and other
researchers feel the pressures of history and present societal politics in terms of working on
LGBT research (Britzman, 2005). A majority of the research has limitations such as no

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

14

knowledge of non-identifying students and absence of multiple identities. This can be effecting
the significance and it is important that research continues to be done to strengthen the practices
that are currently being implemented within the field.
Faculty and staff have started to recognize the multiple identities varying from sexual
orientation, race, religion, gender, among others that are intersecting through the use of current
programs and interventions. Within this culture, professionals can now understand how these
identities support or hinder each other directly impacting student learning and development by
continuing to educate themselves on best practices (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). Corresponding
with the LGBT identity, Nelson & Kriegers (1997) research found that interventions assisted
heterosexual individuals to become more understanding of homosexuals as human beings.
Bowen and Bourgeois (2001) suggest that residence hall directors must provide safe
spaces for LGBT students and that student staff must create programming opportunities to
support these individuals, but also educate everyone within the community. Furthermore,
professionals must also assist in creating inclusive and safe environments by not being silent and
instead speaking out with direct conversations through direct contact with panels. Challenging
this perspective is necessary for all offices to create these safe spaces and to take efforts to
promote diversity and inclusion within the college community.
Conclusion
History is a driving force in progress, but understanding where we are and where we are
going is also imperative. In looking at the history of the LGBT community, Mills (2005)
suggests the importance of recognizing that this is not a universal experience and that this history
should be looked at through the queer perspective. As the presence of LGBT students become
more normalized it is important to clarify that by going through a training, an individuals is not

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

15

completely knowledgeable on the topic. Mills (2005) argues that the history and knowledge of
the LGBT culture has been sexualized and thus effects the historical context and current climate.
To fight perception, education on history and the quick progress that has occurred becomes
absolutely important. By getting every stakeholder in the community on the same foundation,
history can move forward and the LGBT student community can make their own changes and
progress in this ever evolving world.

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

16

References
Beemyn, B. (2003). The silence is broken: A history of the first lesbian, gay, and bisexual college
student groups. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 205-223.
Bilodeau, B. L. & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and
implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services, 111, 25-39.
Britzman, D. P. (2005). Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading straight. Educational Theory,
45(2), 151-165.
Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the campus
climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students using a multiple
perspective approach. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 8-26.
Carpenter, C. (2007). Sexual orientation and outcomes in college. Economics of Educational
Review, 28(6), 693-703.
DAugelli, A. R. (2002). Queer man on campus: A history of non-heterosexual college men,
1945-2000. London: Routledge Falmer.
Dilley, P. (2002). 20th Century postsecondary practices and policies to control gay students. The
Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 409-431.
Garvey, J. C. & Inkelas, K. K. (2012). Exploring relationships between sexual orientation and
satisfaction with faculty and staff interactions. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(8), 11671190.
Hinrichs, D. W. & Rosenberg, P. J. (2008). Attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons
among heterosexual liberal arts college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 61-84.
Marine, S. B. (2011). Stonewalls Legacy: Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Students in
Higher Education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

A HISTORY OF LGBT IDENTIFIED COLLEGE STUDENTS

17

Mills, R. (2005). Queer is here? Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender histories and public
culture. History Workshop Journal, 62, 253-263.
Nelson, E. S. & Krieger, S. L. (1997). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in college
students. Journal of Homosexuality, 33(2), 63-81.
Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists. Journal
of College Student Development, 48(3), 311-330.
Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in Higher Education: The state and status of the
field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132-141.
Russell, G. M. & Bohan, J. S. (2005). The gay generation gap: Communicating across the LGBT
generational divide. The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic
Studies, 8(1), 1-8.