Download GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES 1 The purpose of this

GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
1
The purpose of this study was to gain understanding and gather insight into the
experiences of gay men in single-sex social Greek-letter fraternities. This was accomplished by
conducting interviews with four self-identified gay males who are members of four different
organizations that are part of the Interfraternity Council (IFC) at Florida International University.
Three of the participants are members of traditional fraternities and one was a member of a gay
fraternity. The participants have varying majors, future aspirations, have been college students
for varying periods of time, and have varying degrees of on-campus involvement (though, all
members are involved in activities outside of the classroom).
Participants were asked about their sexual identity, experience in high school, their
overall experience at FIU so far, their decision to join a fraternity, and their experience in their
fraternity so far, including any experiences where they may have felt unsafe or marginalized.
INTRODUCTION
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students are perhaps the subpopulation of the
college campus that are in need of the most attention.
Literature has consistently shown that the college experience of LGBT students is unlike
that of any other student population. Specifically, over half of all LGBT students in one study
reported feeling unsafe, three out of four reported knowing someone who has been harassed due
to their orientation, and 26 percent reported being the victims of threatened violence (Burleson,
2010, p. 13).
4.1 percent of 18-45 year olds in the United States identify as LGBT, which equates to
upwards of 8.8 million people in the country (Chonody, Siebert, & Rutledge, 2009, p. 499).
Many of these people are attending our nation’s universities, and others are prospective students
that are looking for a safe environment to attend school.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
2
LGBT students are more likely to have mental health concerns caused by the stigma,
discrimination, and victimization that come as a result of their orientation (Oswalt & Wyatt,
2011). Some of their toughest struggles include invisibility, multiple social identities,
homophobia, and a dominant hetero-normative culture (Schueler, Hoffman & Peterson, 2009).
They are also likely use counseling services more often as well as being more likely to
engage in risky behaviors such as drug use and suicidal thoughts and attempts (Oswalt & Wyatt,
2011).
LGBT students often feel invisible because of a lack of resources including a lack of
faculty role models, programming, and resource centers. University-sanctioned events,
activities, and programs often feel as if they are created and advertised specifically for the
heterosexual community (Schueler, et al., 2009). Membership in fraternities is a very prominent
college activity, and it is important to know whether or not gay students can feel welcome within
them.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This research was guided by the primary question “What are the stories of gay male
students in single-sex fraternities?” It was also hoped that the research would uncover some of
the factors in why these students chose to rush, what impact their sexual identity plays on their
Greek experience, if they feel comfortable and safe in the Greek community, and, finally, if the
experiences of these students at FIU match the general experience of gay men in fraternities
portrayed in the existing literature.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
3
RATIONALE FOR STUDY
In order to ensure the success of LGBT students in college, administrations must ensure that
there are meaningful involvement opportunities for these students to build a sense of community
and develop a feeling of mattering.
Greek letter organizations are one of the most prominent ways to get involved on
campus, but critics often label such groups as being heterosexist, which poses a problem in this
situation. How true is this label, and what can be done to overcome it and provide an
opportunity for the labels ‘gay’ and ‘Greek’ to not be mutually exclusive?
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
In order to facilitate maximum understanding of the various terms that are used throughout the
study, a number of definitions are provided. In this paper, LGBT refers to any person who
identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. While this study focuses specifically on gay
males, the literature often refers to statistics regarding the LGBT group as a whole, so the
literature review will reflect whatever term was used by the researcher in the literature being
discussed.
Greek letter organization refers to a tax exempt, usually sex-segregated collegiate student
organization, of a social nature, officially recognized by the host institution. This paper
primarily focuses on fraternities, which are the male version of such an organization.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Literature was examined about the needs and experiences of LGBT students in colleges
and universities, moral development, group identity, and heterosexism in collegiate Greek
organizations, and finally, the experience of LGBT students within these Greek organizations.
For the purpose of this study, several types of academic search engines including ERIC and
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
4
Academic OneFile, for example, were utilized. A list of key words such as LGBT, gay, college
student, Greek organization, and fraternity were used in various combinations as part of a search
for information for this study.
The next sections summarize the following: there is a significant amount of research that
sheds lights on concerns about membership in Greek organizations, and the values perpetuated
by them. There is also much research that has found positive outcomes correlated with
membership and membership’s ability to retain students by forging a deeper relationship with the
campus community.
Identity Development Issues
LGBT students are so much more than that. First off, the identity of LGBT students is
often oversimplified, to whether or not the person engages in sexual activity with the same sex or
opposite sex when, in reality, sexual orientation identity consists of a number of dimensions
including emotional and social preference, lifestyle, and sexual attraction (Evans, Forney, Guido,
Patton, & Renn, 2010).
In addition to their sexual orientation identity, with the rejection that it may cause within
one’s family, religion, or culture, these students also must be understood in the context of other
identities: race, ethnicity, religion, and so on.
Students who identify as LGBT but are also women or ethnic minorities often face added
challenges associated with membership in that group (Schueler, et al., 2009).
Sexual orientation identification itself is also less simple than either homosexual or
heterosexual. According to Evans, et al. (2010), “gay and lesbian individuals may be in different
places with regard to their individual and group identities (p. 315).”
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
5
Schuler, et al. (2009) agrees that there are also two layers of identity development that go
along with sexual orientation itself: the personal aspect, coming to terms with one’s own
identification, and then the development of group identity to the larger LGBT community. Just
because a gay or lesbian seems to be fully integrated into the LGBT community, such as by
being a member of an advocacy organization, for example, does not actually mean that they are
fully secure in their sexual orientation identity, however. A full range of factors including level
of support from family, from faculty, and from one’s own romantic partner all affect the level of
identity development (Evans, et al., 2010).
Capitalizing on Patterns of Challenge and Support: Gay Students and Faculty
Patterns exist on college campuses as to the perceptions and knowledge of LGBT issues
between various campus constituencies. Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig (2004)
conducted a campus climate survey responded to by “80 GLBT students, 253 general students,
126 faculty members, 41 student affairs staff members, and 105 residence hall assistants.” The
research took place at a public Midwestern research university with 22,000 students. Surveys
were mailed out in four groups, and each group had over an 80% response rate. Participants
were asked about their knowledge of, interest in, and involvement with LGBT issues. The
researchers wanted to know whether and how these factors varied between different community
groups (faculty, student affairs, resident assistants, etc), and between other classifications such as
sex, academic class (for students), and discipline (for faculty). Depending on whether the
respondent was a general student, resident assistant, or LGBT student, certain sections were
added or omitted to make the survey more relevant to the group. To measure the difference in
attitude among the academic disciplines, the Biglan classification system was used that
categorizes disciplines into hard versus soft, pure versus applied and life versus nonlife.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
6
The researchers found that both membersip in different subsets of the university
community as well as other classifications such as sex and discipline do have a measurable effect
on knowledge of, interest in, and involvement with LGBT issues (Brown, et al, 2004).
Some specific findings:

Faculty versus Student Affairs: More student affairs staff members had intervened in a
situation where a derogatory remark was made against an LGBT student and expressed
greater interest in LGBT topics than faculty.

General students versus Resident Assistants: RAs learned more about, and had a larger
attitude shift regarding, LGBT issues in a one year period than did general students.

LGBT students versus General students: LGBT students reported a perceiving a more
negative campus climate and having more knowledge and interest in LGBT topics than
did general students (Brown, et al, 2004).
Student affairs staff reported significantly more knowledge in and interest of LGBT
issues than did their faculty counterparts. Among the faculty, professors in the hard sciences
were less likely to be supportive of LGBT issues than their peers in the soft sciences (Brown, et
al, 2004).
The attitude and level of interest toward LGBT issues from faculty is important because
students’ experience in the classroom, the core of the academic experience, will surely have a
student’s feelings of safety and acceptance on campus.
The way that faculty members approach class topics is important to developing an LGBT
student’s feeling of welcome. LGBT students have reported feeling uncomfortable disclosing
their sexual orientation to faculty because of how material is presented in a heterocentrist
fashion, or because of homophobic remarks from peers going unchallenged by the faculty
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
7
member. This feeling of discomfort in the classroom can also lead to LGBT students not being
able to develop meaningful mentor relationships (Schueler, et al., 2009).
Unfortunately, because of a tradition of academic freedom, it can be more challenging to
incorporate LGBT-friendly practices or content into the classroom, as instructors are frequently
resistant to suggested changes to their syllabi (Brown, et al., 2004).
Perhaps most importantly, there exists a significant gap between how LGBT students
perceive the campus climate toward them and how the entire rest of the community perceives it
(Burleson, 2010; Brown, et al., 2004). This knowledge must be utilized in order to create a
dialogue between LGBT students and other campus groups that would enhance mutual
understanding (Brown, et al, 2004).
The challenging status of being an LGBT college student, including frequent verbal and
physical harassment, causes many students to avoid becoming involved on campus and can also
negatively impact academic performance. Further, these students are more likely to consider
withdrawing from their institution (Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011).
Oswalt & Wyatt (2011) analyzed the responses of 27,454 college students to the College
Health Association’s National College Health Assessment administered in the fall of 2009. The
assessment was administered at 57 colleges and universities and originally included 34,208
respondents, but in order to be able to analyze the difference between LGBT and heterosexual
students and to narrow the findings around typical American college students, students who did
not disclose a sexual orientation were excluded from the analysis as were students over 50 (the
data set included participants 18-97 years old). Transgendered students were also excluded from
the analysis because the researchers felt that they had a disproportionately negative view toward
their college experience that could skew the results, but this raises concerns about the mental
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
8
health concerns of transgendered students being represented. Interview questions attempted to
ascertain the mental health issues of respondents via several categories: feelings and behaviors
related to poor mental health, mental health diagnoses, use of mental health services, and
perceived impact of mental health on academics. The survey collected the following
demographic items, as well: age, gender, sexual orientation, year in school, student status, and
residence.
The researchers broke down their findings far further than is necessary for the purposes
of our discussion of gay college students, here, by comparing results between gay men, lesbian
females, and bisexuals, but what is important is that the overall hypothesis of the researchers was
confirmed: sexual minority college students exhibited greater mental health challenges and
stressors than did their heterosexual peers (Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011).
Fraternity Life as an Important Vehicle for Campus Involvement
Why Involvement?: The Impact on Student Identity Development
As a member of a nondominant group, LGBT students may begin to feel marginalized.
Put simply, and defined by student identity theorist Nancy Schlossberg, is a sense of not fitting
in, which can in turn be responsible for a variety of negative factors in a student including
depression (Evans, et al., 2010)
Being involved and engaged outside of the classroom is widely recognized as being a
positive influence on retention and performance, and can help ensure that students feel that they
matter. Alexander Astin, another leading force in understanding student development, says that
students must engage in their environment, and that faculty and staff must create opportunities
for that to happen, in order for students to truly learn and grow. Other theorists, including
Pascarella and Terenzini agree that development is facilitated by colleges providing a variety of
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
9
opportunities for students to have engaging social and cultural experiences (Evans, et al., 2010).
Thus, examining ways to ensure that involvement opportunities are welcoming to the LGBT
community is vital.
One of the most prominent ways to be involved on campus is membership in a Greek
letter organization. According to Hall & La France (2007), 5.3 million Americans are or have
been part of such a group.
Conflicting Literature on Greek Life Development Outcomes
Literature on the impact that membership in a Greek letter organization has on students is
fairly consistent in pointing out that fraternities have a reputation that includes hazing, drug
abuse, sexual assault, discrimination/insensitivity, and low academic performance due to the
frequent reports of actual incidents as well as the way the organizations are portrayed in popular
culture in movies such as Animal House (Mathiasen, 2005).
Studies have even concluded that membership, despite the stated goals of moral
development, often has no or even a negative effect on such development, and criticisms of
Greek letter organizations have been increasing constantly due to a perception that members
have failed to live up to their stated goals and instead have become known for a variety of selfdestructive behaviors (Earley, 1998).
Despite all of this however, Greek letter membership, if done right, provides a number of
opportunities to improve one’s self and community, make connections, and more.
Fraternities’ mission statements, creeds, and other published goals speak to their intended
outcomes. Mathiasen (2005) interviewed members, reviewed documents, and observed activities
and rituals of one fraternity at a large, Midwestern university. The fraternity was recommended
by university administrators for study because of their success on campus.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
10
Mathiasen (2005) identified four main themes of what is important to the fraternity that
he observed: recruiting quality students, upholding tradition and reputation, emphasizing moral
development, and encouraging community service. Some of the terms that Earley (1998) found
to be common are: moral advancement, integrity, truth, goodness, social responsibility, sacred
trust, and honor.
Though enough research has not been conducted to show definitive causal relationships,
there do seem to be some benefits to fraternity membership: involvement in such organizations
has been correlated to higher self-esteem when compared to non-affiliated college students, for
example (Hall & La France, 2007).
Another benefit of membership in fraternities is the community service and service
learning component. For example, since 1991, Greek letter organizations on almost 200 college
campuses have participated in a program via the National Interfraternity Council to pair
fraternity members with elementary school children to improve grades and self-esteem (Earley,
1998).
Mathiasen (2005), through a survey of campus administrators and interviews of members
and advisors, published a case study of one fraternity chapter where moral character and
academic achievement were taken very seriously by the brothers during the recruitment process,
and upholding those values via the long-standing house reputation was important to the members
year-round (Mathiasen, 2005).
When Gay and Greek Collide
Considering all of the positive outcomes Greek life can have on a college career, and
coupling that with the need for LGBT students to find avenues to become involved, feel
accepted, and ultimately graduate, our exploration must center on what barriers are preventing
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
11
full participation of LGBT students in Greek letter organizations, and how they are being
overcome.
Of all of the negative aspects of Greek life surveyed across the literature, one of the most
pervasive, and certainly most relevant to our current study is that of sexism and heterosexism.
Homophobia is institutionalized in many all-male environments, including not only
fraternities but also athletic teams and the military. It is common for members of these groups to
feel that the presence of a gay member will jeopardize the group’s success. Though little
research exists specifically toward gay members in college fraternities, anecdotal evidence
suggests that being open in such a group is difficult if not dangerous (Hall & La France, 2007).
Hall & LaFrance (2007) used snowball sampling to recruit participants, belong to various
fraternities, on a mid-sized, private university with no religious affiliation in an urban, Southwest
setting. Questionnaires were given to students in a communications course. Fraternity members
were given course credit for completing the survey, and non-fraternity members were given
course credit for having a fraternity member fill out the survey. Ninety eight men took part in
the research with the average age of 20 years old, having been in college 3 years and having been
a fraternity member for 2 years. 96 percent of the respondents identified as heterosexual, and
the remaining minority was a mix of homosexual and bisexual students. Using a 7-point Likert
scale, the questionnaire assessed participant on their attitude toward homosexuals, hetero-identity
concern, and the frequency of homophobic communication in the context of their Greek
organization. They were also asked to complete the sentences “I believe it would be good/bad
for a member of my fraternity to be gay because…” and “If a member of my fraternity was gay,
that would make me feel good/bad because…”
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
12
The researchers found that social adjustment function played a large role in fraternity
members’ attitudes toward homosexuals, that concerns about appearing gay increased as
members’ attitudes became increasingly homophobic, and also found support for that as
concerns about appearing gay increased, members utilized more homophobic communication. It
was also discovered that report that 70 percent of fraternity members have witnessed
homophobic attitudes within their chapter , and fraternity m (Hall & LaFrance, 2007).
Members who come out as gay may find themselves kicked out of the group, especially
on campuses where sexual orientation has not been codified as part of the institutional
nondiscrimination policy (Vary, 2004).
Some factors that contribute to the attitude of homophobia in fraternal organizations are:
“desire to maintain a cohesive male-male relationship, facilitate recruitment, and improve
relationships with sorority members (Hall & La France, 2007, p. 40).”
Having homosexual members is seen as a threat to a fraternity’s ability to recruit
successfully, which is required to retain recognition, because of a perception that potential
members would not want to be part of the “gay house (Hall & La France, 2007).”
Hall & La France (2007) discuss the ‘social adjustment function, ’ which is a construct by
which members of a group conform to the core values of that group, receiving social benefits for
aligning attitudes and actions with other members. Group members wish to receive satisfaction
as a result of their membership, and members are more likely to be satisfied the more that they
have aligned their identity with the organization’s. Thus, even if an individual member thinks
that having homosexual members would be a benefit to the organization, that may not be
publically expressed.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
13
Hetero-identity concern refers to the tendency of some men to engage in homophobic
behaviors because of a fear that they will otherwise be seen as homosexual themselves. In order
to not be perceived as having a gay identity, a male may use communication to express antihomosexual views.
In fraternities, this tendency may be amplified simply due to the fact that such a concern
over achieving hetero-identity is stronger in all-male situations, and members of fraternities will
not want to jeopardize their relationships with the other male members (Hall & La France, 2007).
An interesting finding in this survey is that as respondent’s attitudes of homophobia went
higher, their perception that others in the fraternity were using derogatory language regarding
homosexuals went down. This is due that the derogatory language was in line with their own
schema regarding homosexuality and thus was less noticeable (Hall & La France, 2007).
Other interesting cycles include that participants who were more concerned about
upholding their hetero-identity were more homophobic, which in turn correlated with an
increased use of derogatory language toward homosexuals (Hall & La France, 2007).
Participants consistently reported that their peers in the fraternity used derogatory
language toward homosexuals more frequently than they did themselves (Hall & La France,
2007).
Facilitating inclusiveness of LGBT students into Greek communities is not only
important in order to give gay members the opportunity to be involved, but can have a positive
impact on the development of the heterosexual members as well.
This is because the mere exposure of biased groups, students that are homophobic, for
example, to LGBT people, has been shown to result in a positive change in attitude toward the
group (Chonody, et al., 2009).
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
14
This is in contrast to other tools that a school might use to raise LGBT awareness, such as
lesson plans, that do not involve actual contact with LGBT people, that result in no positive
change in attitude (Chonody, et al., 2009).
Looking past the impact that Gay-Greek integration has on both heterosexual and
homosexual students, a third benefit could be one that is enjoyed by the school itself: increased
recruitment of gay students, which as noted earlier, is a sizable amount of the college-aged
population.
While LGBT resources are not the first priority on many of these students mind when
choosing a college, as compared to things like financial aid, still, 67 percent of LGBT students
do look for a LGBT-friendly campus as part of their search (Burelson, 2010).
Gay Men in Fraternities
Overview
We have seen that beneath the negative aspects and stereotypes, participation in a Greek
letter organization has many positive benefits. LGBT students deserve to be able to participate
in these groups in order to have the opportunity to reap the same benefits. To this end, many
traditional fraternities have become much more inclusive of gay members over the years. Also,
there have been a handful of fraternities, such as Delta Lambda Phi, specifically established for
gay members.
Gay Men in Traditional Fraternities
Ryan Miccio, a member of a fraternity at Colorado State University, was nervous about
coming out to the whole chapter. After he made his announcement (“not only am I a member of
this fraternity, I am a gay member of this fraternity”) during a chapter meeting, though, brothers
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
15
took turns voicing their support of him, even the members Miccio thought would have a problem
with his sexuality (Vary, 2004).
Progress made in the past few decades include major national fraternities adding sexual
orientation clauses to their nondiscrimination procedures, providing literature on how to handle a
brother who comes out of the closet, and policies which aim to put an end to most hazing, which
often involved homophobic activities (Vary, 2004).
Schueler, et al. (2009) recommend helping all student organizations develop guidelines
for programs and communication that foster inclusiveness of LGBT students, including the
development of appropriate recruitment materials.
Some other areas where sensitivity to language and images should be considered by
fraternities is in applications, forms, and living spaces (Schueler, et al., 2009).
A Fraternity for Gay Men
Delta Lamdba Phi the national fraternity for “gay, bisexual, and progressive gentlemen”
(Vary, 2004, p. 50) “striving to be recognized in one of the most heterosexist institutions in
American college life: the Fraternity” (Yeung & Stombler, 2000, p. 139).
DLP has grown exponentially since its founding in 1986 because of the increase in gay
college students who come onto campus actively looking for a social network welcoming to their
individuality (Vary, 2004). The impact of such an organization on identity development is
paramount.
For some members, DLP rush events were their first actual interaction in the gay
community, and constituted their coming out experience. DLP events were, for many, the first
time that they were able to connect with other members of the gay community after previously
having felt somewhat isolated, and, through the official programming focused on gay history and
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
16
culture, was the first time that they were able to experience their sexuality in a structured context.
Along the same lines, gay students may also choose a gay fraternity over a traditional one
in order to meet more gay friends, if they have not previously had such an opportunity. Vary
(2004) detailed the account of one students who chose the route because he had mostly straight
friends coming into college.
Yeung & Stombler (2000) collected data from interviews, observations, and artifacts for a
study on the national gay fraternity, Delta Lambda Phi. In one phase of the study, one researcher
attended all of the chapter meetings, social events, rituals, and community service events of a
forming chapter of DLP. Individual interviews were conducted of the members of the forming
chapter, and additional interviews were collected by attending a national gay fraternity
organization and through lists of additional volunteers provided by chapter presidents.
The researchers found that formation of individual and group identity for the members of DLP
was rife with complexity and contradiction. Brothers of DLP utilized the traditional fraternity
structure in order to resist the traditional fraternity structure. Seeking to gain acceptance in both
the straight and gay fraternities, which wanted different things from the group, is another
paradox.
Because DLP was seen as a “secure” environment, members were able to “identify,
affirm, and celebrate their sexuality” while being incorporated into the larger gay community
(Yeung & Stombler, 2000, p.138).
Membership in DLP meant redefining and reframing what it meant to be gay and helped
brothers overcome the “fear, shame, or guilt” previously experienced (Yeung & Stombler, 2000.
p.138)
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
17
DLP has found itself in somewhat of a perpetual dilemma regarding how to gain the most
acceptance. The question: To push gayness into the background and jeopardize the support of
the gay community or to bring gayness into the foreground and risk legitimacy in the straight
Greek world.
To combat the stereotype of homosexuals as over sexualized, the organization strongly
discouraged intimate relationships between brothers, especially those of a short-term nature or
occurring between brothers and pledges (Yeung & Stombler, 2000).
Yeung and Stombler (2000) say that the very nature of being a gay fraternity puts DLP
somewhat at odds with both the gay world and straight world and leads to it being at least
somewhat rejected by both.
METHODS
Grounded Theory
The responses will be analyzed, using grounded theory, for themes in order to answer the
research question: "What are the experiences of gay male students in single-sex fraternities?"
Grounded theory is an inductive, qualitative research method where, rather than
attempting to verify or invalidate a hypothesis, theories are generated and discovered as a result
of the research (Packer, 2011). These theories are generated by comparing incidents among
participants, conceptualizing the incidents into categories, and then comparing the categories
among cases to establish what is uniform among and unique between all of the cases in the study
(Packer, 2011).
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
18
Semistructured Interview Format
In a semistructured interview, “interviewees are allowed a great deal of latitude in the
way they answer, the length of their responses, and even the topics that they discuss. (Packer,
2011).” The interviews for this research will be on the more rigid end of the semistrcutred
spectrum, because all interviews will follow the same 10-question sequence, however, there will
be flexibility for the researcher to expand or clarify responses when appropriate.
Throughout the entire interview, participants will be encouraged to elaborate on their
answers to elicit the richest data possible. A full list of interview questions can be found in the
appendix.
According to Packer (2011), when interviews are coded inductively, the coding system is
developed during the first reading of the transcript with no prior theoretical framework. The
coding focuses on what is common among multiple interviews. Once categories are established
based on what has emerged from the data, “the researcher combs through the interview
transcripts and applies a category (sometimes more than one) to everything that was said.”
All of the interviews are documented via audio recording. Responses to each question
will be transcribed. According to Scott & Usher (1998), in order to code interviews, the stages
of grounded theory consist of collecting data, transcribing data, developing categories, saturating
categories, and integrating theory. Any common themes between multiple participants will be
noted so that significant attention can be paid to the issues raised by more than one participant.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
19
FINDINGS
Participants
Four students were interviewed for this research. All are 1) current students in an IFC
fraternity at FIU, 2) identify as gay/homosexual, and 3) are involved on campus outside of their
fraternity (this was not a prerequisite, it just so happened to turn out that way). In all other ways,
the participants are very different in age, background, aspirations, etc.
Each participant expressed that their sexuality is not a defining factor of themselves. For
example, James feels that “more than anything, I am human,” and Orlando said that his sexuality
“doesn’t define me; it is a part of me, and I love that part of me, but it isn’t who I am.”
Chris
Chris, a 23-year old senior is set to graduate with a degree in psychology with a 2.6 GPA.
He is the only member of the study who is in a gay, rather than traditional fraternity. He was
born in the United States to Cuban parents. Outside of his fraternity, he has been involved with
the Stonewall Pride Alliance, a gay rights advocacy group, the Interfraternity Council executive
board, and the American Cancer Society Relay for Life.
Chris says that he would not trade his experience at FIU “for anything in the world,” and
is pleased that the university offers so many resources, opportunities, and organizations,
including many which foster the state of diversity that is on campus.
James
James, a 19-year old sophomore born in Puerto Rico has been involved with Student
Government, Dance Marathon, American Cancer Society Relay for Life, and the Residence Hall
Association. He has a 3.71 GPA and is studying international relations. James does feel that
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
20
FIU is a diverse community, but that is more because of its location in Miami than anything in
particular that the university does to foster diversity.
Orlando
Orlando, born in Brooklyn, is 18-years old. As a freshman studying public relations, he
is already heavily involved on campus, having been a part of the Student Programming Council,
and Alternative Breaks, and has a 2.7 GPA. He considers choosing to come to FIU as his “adult
decision,” because though there were other schools that he preferred during the application
process, he did not want to accumulate too much debt on out of town schools with ultimately the
“same education value.” Ultimately, he thinks that he “made the right choice” not only in
coming to FIU but in choosing to get involved in a number of activities.
When he decided to rush, he was initially worried that he might not be accepted in a
fraternity, but while there were a few organizations that he did not get the best vibes from, he
says he has not ever felt marginalized in the Greek community and spoke about how his brothers
admire him for having the courage to be open with them, and that they go out of their way and
make a conscious effort to not be offensive to him.
Josh
Josh, 22-years old, is also a senior, and was born in Colombia. During his time at FIU,
he has been involved in: Panther Camp, Dance Marathon, Peer Advising, Omicron Delta Kappa
(Leadership Society), Order of Omega (Greek Leadership Society), and the National Society of
Collegiate Scholars. He will graduate with a degree in business administration and a GPA of
3.5.
Josh says that since being at FIU, he has not experienced any apprehension about his
sexual orientation, and he attributes that to the accepting culture of the Miami area. Josh
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
21
attributes being involved on campus as one thing that has helped him come to terms with his
sexuality himself, because of the leadership trainings that involve a large amount of selfexamination. He says that he was his chapter’s first openly gay member in five years, and that
even so, his brothers were very welcoming, and since he joined, there have been three more
openly gay members who have joined.
Reasons for Rushing
The common theme between all participants in reference to why they first decided to go
through the fraternity recruitment process was that they were influenced, in most cases, by
someone close to them. Two of the participants indicated that a friend of theirs was interested in
going through recruitment, but did not want to do it alone. Another, Orlando, had a sister who
had joined a sorority at another university, and was interested in a similar experience, and the
final participant was approached by a current fraternity member during an orientation resource
fair and became interested in the process. The initial decision to consider joining Greek life was
not impacted the sexual orientation of any of the members.
Insofar as choosing a style of organization, all three members of traditional fraternities
were not aware of the existence of a gay fraternity on campus while they were rushing. One of
the three, Josh, indicated that he definitely would not have considered that route at the time
because his sexuality was largely a secret and because he doesn’t think that he would “feel at
home” in a gay organization. The other two may have been open to the idea if they had known,
but are happy with where they ended up and do not necessarily wish that they had known.
Chris, being the only participant who was aware of his option to join a gay fraternity, as
well as being familiar with the particulars of membership within such an organization, was able
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
22
to provide some insight into some of the factors that would drive potential members to one type
or the other.
“It would really depend on what you are looking for,” Chris said. “If you’re looking to be
proactive, to make a difference and a change in the gay community,” then a gay fraternity would
be more geared toward those goals. A traditional fraternity, he says, would provide a more
generalized experience.
Experience
The existing literature strongly implies that membership in a fraternity can be an at best
unwelcoming, and at worst dangerous, experience for gay members. However, all 4 participants
reported that they felt completely safe and comfortable within their organizations. All 4 also
reported that they have never felt marginalized in any way since joining their organization, and
only Chris reported experiencing marginalization during the rush process (“I felt like at the time
there was a lot of animosity toward homosexuals within the organizations, so I did not feel as
comfortable with them.”). Orlando also mentioned that during the rush process that there were a
few organizations that he got bad “vibes” from, but also added that it could have been him
“seeing the worst in people;” when asked if he felt marginalized during the rush process, he said
that he did not.
Research Conclusions, Limitations, and Suggestions for Follow-Up
For the participants in this research, the decision to join a fraternity was largely based on
social pressure unrelated to their sexual orientation. In other words, they were persuaded to join
either by someone close to them, or someone they had met on campus. In addition, the
participants reported that their sexuality was simply one part of their overall, complex selves.
An implication of these two findings put together is that, when attempting to recruit gay men into
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
23
fraternities, organizations should not use specific marketing strategies but rather focus on
treating them equally and making them feel welcome, as should be the case with everyone.
Based on these cases, it appears that gay men in fraternities at FIU face less adversity
than what is reported in existing literature. More specifically, these students at FIU feel
consistently and unequivocally comfortable and safe as part of the Greek community. If this
finding holds to be true using a larger sample, FIU should identify the specific factors, such as
campus climate and culture, as well as any relevant policies that make the Greek community so
welcoming, so that they can be used as a case study for other universities.
Though a detailed look into the lives of some of the gay members of the Greek
community at FIU, this study is heavily limited by the sample size. Further research
encompassing a broader portion of this community is certainly needed. In addition, it is noted
that the study is potentially limited by the fact that, because of the culture of fraternities,
members may be reluctant to report any negative experiences that they have had in their
organization to an outsider. However, based on the detail and sincerity of the responses given by
all participants about their experiences, this researcher does not believe that this was actually a
large issue in this circumstance.
There is ample room for more similar research studies to take place on the gay male
fraternity member that looks for more specific correlations and contributing factors. For
example, does whether a student is involved on campus other than in their fraternity have an
effect on their experience? How about race and ethnicity, or whether they live at home, on
campus, or with other roommates? The list of possibilities is truly endless.
Finally, in answering the question of whether the experiences of students at FIU are
different from the existing literature (this researcher found that it was), there are also limitations
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
24
that hinder our ability to make this direct comparison. First of all, Miami, the location of the FIU
campus, is a very unique cultural setting, and for that reason, people here may simply be more
accepting, regardless of any policies or practices employed by the university and its fraternities.
Likewise, any factors identified at FIU that were successful may not work as well in other
regions. Finally, while much of the literature reviewed for this research was only several years
old, the national change in opinion about LGBT rights as necessary civil rights in those several
years alone, as evidenced by numerous factors including the number of state legislatures that
have legalized gay marriage, has been great, and it is possible that the experience of gay men in
fraternities at those campuses may have improved since previous studies were published.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
25
References
Brown, R., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the campus
climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students using a multiple perspectives
approach. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 8-26.
Burleson, D.A. (2010). Sexual orientation and college choice: Considering campus climate.
About Campus, 14(6), 9-14.
Chonody, J.M. Siebert, DC., & Rutledge, S.E. (2009). College students’ attitudes towards gays
and lesbians. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), 499-512.
Earley, C. (1998). Influencing ethical development in Greek letter organizations. New Directions
for Student Services, (81), 39-47.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., & Renn K.A. (2010). Student development
in college: Theory, research, and practice. (2 ed, pp. 31; 305-326). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Hall, J. & La France, B. (2007). Attitudes and communication of homophobia in fraternities:
Separating the impact of social adjustment function from hetero-identity concern.
Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 39-60.
Mathiasen, R. E. (2005). Moral development in fraternity members: A case study. College
Student Journal, 39(2), 242-252.
Oswalt, S. B. & Wyatt, T. J. (2011). Sexual orientation and difference in mental health, stress,
and academic performance in a national sample of college students. Journal of
Homosexuality, 58(9), 1255-1280.
Packer, M. (2011). The science of qualitative research. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Schueler, L.A., Hoffman, J.A., & Peterson, E. (2009). Fostering safe, engaging campuses for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students. In S. Harper & S. Quaye
(Eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education (pp.61-79). New York, NY: Routledge.
Scott, D. & Usher, R. (1998). Understanding educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vary, A.E. (2004, October 12). Rushing to come out. The Advocate, 47-50.
Yeung, K. & Stombler, M. (2000). Gay and Greek: The identity paradox of gay fraternities.
Social Problems, 47(11), 134-152.
GAY MEN IN FRATERNITIES
26
Appendix A: Interview Questions
Subpopulation Interview Questions Tell me about your experience in high school Tell me about your experience applying for college – what were you looking for in a school, concerned about, excited for, etc. Describe your overall experience at FIU so far. How do you feel about the state of diversity on campus? Tell me about your decision to join a fraternity. Do you think that you would have made the same decision at another university? Did you consider both gay and traditional fraternities when making your decision? What factors influenced this decision? What do you think drives potential members to one or the other? Tell me about your experience in your fraternity so far. Did you ever feel marginalized during the rush process? Pledging process? Since being a brother? Tell me about it Do you feel comfortable in your fraternity? Safe? Has your experience changed over time? How would you say that your sexual orientation plays a role in your overall identity? (perhaps: are you a part of or interested in organizations and activism? How big of an impact has it had on your overall college experience?) Tell me a little about your future aspirations.