Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Ally Training Programs on Campus: Current Variations and Future Directions

Campus climate for LGBT students became the subject of national concern in 2010 after the harassment and death of Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi (McKinley, 2010). This incident shows how serious LGBT discrimination on campus can be. It also reinforces the importance of on‐the‐ground efforts to address homophobia. Speaker panels and safe space/ally programs are commonly recommended interventions to raise awareness about sexual and gender diversity and build LGBT‐affirming campus environments (Beemyn, Domingue, Pettitt, & Smith, 2005; Rankin, 2005). Safe space/ally programs in particular have been gaining popularity since the 1990s but have received little empirical attention, especially across campuses (Draughn, Elkins, & Roy, 2002; Poynter & Tubbs, 2007).

An ally is broadly defined as an individual with the awareness, knowledge, and skills to support those experiencing discrimination, confront injustice, and advocate for social justice (Broido, 2000; Ji, Dubois, & Finnessy, 2009; Washington & Evans, 1991/2000). LGBT ally programs generally take two forms (Poynter & Tubbs, 2007): (a) programs that seek to establish a visible network of extant LGBT‐affirming students, staff, and faculty (e.g., Evans, 2002) and (b) programs that educate interested individuals to become allies (e.g., Alvarez & Schneider, 2008). To become an ally, it is necessary to learn about LGBT students’ experiences, critically reflect on one’s attitudes, understand heterosexism and how it is perpetuated (including one’s role in that process), and develop skills to act as a resource and advocate (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007; Hardiman, Jackson, & Griffin, 2007). Regardless of program type, allies often bring visibility to LGBT issues by displaying a sticker or button indicating their commitment to promoting a safe environment (Draughn et al., 2002).

Our research focused on programs integrating a training component, commonly referred to as LGBT ally training programs (ATPs), and looked at the potential of current programming to prepare individuals to embrace the ally role, as conceptualized in the literature. Concern has been raised in the literature that ally programs tend to focus on providing support to LGBT persons versus intervention at the group and institutional levels (Draughn et al., 2002). These authors, however, did not distinguish between programs that include training from those that do not, and their conclusions are not empirically based.

Although studies have documented and evaluated ATPs at individual institutions (e.g., Bruno, 2005; Finkel, Storaasli, Bandele, & Schaefer, 2003; Woodford, Radeka, & Yu, 2011), ATPs as a group have received little empirical attention. To increase knowledge of LGBT ally education, we report the results of an anonymous online survey conducted with institutional members of the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals concerning LGBT campus programming. The consortium is a national network of college and university centers, offices, and professionals whose core work is supporting LGBT and ally communities in higher education (Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals, n.d.). Our study looked at design characteristics and content of ATPs with a view toward strengthening current programs and bolstering the development of new initiatives.

Methods

To inform efforts to improve our own university’s LGBT campus climate programming, we surveyed institutions about their programs. We invited all institutional members of the consortium (N = 200) to participate in the study. Fifty‐one institutions completed the survey (return rate = 26%). Forty‐four campus climate‐related education and awareness programs were described, and 25 of these were ATPs. Information about the goals, content, and design of five of these programs was not provided, thereby reducing our analytical sample to 20 ATPs. The analytical sample consisted of 16 universities and four 4‐year colleges, 52% with student populations of 15,000 or less. On average, institutions in this sample had 1.38 full‐time staff and 2.92 part‐time staff dedicated to LGBT campus programs. Using NVIVO version 7, two of the researchers inductively analyzed the data using open coding and focused coding (Charmaz, 2006). Data were examined numerous times to ensure that all relevant data points were identified. To foster the credibility of our analysis, peer debriefing occurred with the director of our...