The LGBT+ Campus Climate Survey
In 2013 a small group of researchers were generously provided funding by the Equality and Diversity
group at the University of Surrey to conduct the first ever LGBT+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans)
Campus Climate research here at Surrey.
The research was the first in the country to consider both students and staff experiences of LGBT+
life at University. It also used a unique approach by not only asking both LGBT+ staff and students
their experiences, but also asking people in significant positions at the University how they felt
LGBT+ people accessed services.
Using this approach, Prof. Peter Hegarty, Dr Andrew King, Katherine Hubbard and Sebastian Bartos
collected data from a whole range of people at the University with the aim to gauge what life is like
for LGBT+ people on campus.
The following represents a summary version of the report developed by the researchers.
The LGBT+ community at Surrey
From the survey of LGBT+ staff and students we had
undergraduates, postgraduates, academic staff and
non-academic staff all represented in the responses.
Of those who filled out the survey 41 were women,
38 were men and 4 were gender queer, of these
people 72 said this was the gender they were
assigned at birth and 11 said it was not. In total there
were 44 lesbian or gay people, 28 bisexual people, 6
straight people, 2 asexual people and 3 people
responded that they did not know their sexuality. The
majority of respondents were White, with only 12
respondents being mixed race, Asian, Black and South
Asian. Again, the vast majority of respondents were
non-religious, 13 were Christian, 3 were Buddhist,
and 1 was Pagan, no respondents were Muslim,
Hindu, Confucian or Jewish. Most of the respondents
did not say they had a disability and 11 said they did
(including dyslexia, dyspraxia and ‘other’).
In addition we also asked the ‘key informants’, those
with significant positions at the University, whether they were familiar with LGBT+ staff and
students. In total, 92% said they knew lesbian staff and 58% said they knew lesbian students; 83%
said they knew gay staff and 67% knew gay student; 17% knew bisexual staff and students; and 25%
knew trans staff and 42% knew trans students. 17% also reported knowing staff and students who
are not located within the LGBT acronym but represent other gender and sexuality groups. LGBT+
people therefore make up a significant part of the staff and student population here at Surrey and
there was no key informant who knew no LGBT+ people.
Key findings
Having conducted analysis on the LGBT+ staff and student survey as well as the responses from key
informants we uncovered the following key findings:
1. Overall diversity and equality is valued at Surrey. An ethos of inclusion is often promoted
and explicit forms of prejudice or discrimination are rare. Many respondents viewed Surrey
as an environment which supported equal treatment of everyone and somewhere they felt
‘at home’. There was a great deal of support of LGBT+ specific events from the respondents.
Events which fostered a sense of community and allowed LGBT+ people to meet other
LGBT+ people were considered very positive. Several people requested that there were
more events which occurred throughout the year and there was the suggestion that events
become more diverse. For example, some were critical that many activities surrounded
drinking activities.
2. There is a culture of heteronormativity (the assumption that everyone is heterosexual unless
they state otherwise) and cisgenderism (the assumption everyone identifies with the gender
they were assigned at birth) at Surrey. This was noted by both LGBT+ staff, students and key
informants, and often a lack of ‘training’ of ‘LGBT knowledge’ was evidenced for this. Such
visibility problems and assumptions which are often applied to groups of people with little
thought and can have profound impact on LGBT+ individuals. Also although reports of
physical violence and discrimination were very low, many LGBT routinely reported hearing
homophobic and biphobic language. The use of ‘gay’ being used in a derogatory way or
people shouting at couples on campus were reportes. Indeed, though the excuse of ‘banter’
or joking was commonly cited, the impact was harmful to LGBT+ individuals. And such
language only reinforces the heteronormative and cisgenderist culture of Surrey.
3. Several participants noted how Universities are often places where people develop identities
and understandings about their gender and sexuality. The University’s institutional mission
regarding education fit well with the aims of creating an inclusive environment for everyone.
Several LGBT+ respondents also said how their identities and experiences have allowed
them to understand other forms of oppression and difference.
4.
For a number of reasons some areas of campus were considered safer than others for
LGBT+ people. Perhaps unsurprisingly areas which were considered safe were those which
were explicitly LGBT+ friendly including LGBT events. Tease, the LGBT club night at Rubix,
was regularly mentioned as a safe place as was people’s individual offices. Places which
were not considered safe were often the same geographical locations but at different times,
for example, Rubix (on non-Tease nights), after dark or badly lit areas of campus and where
people had most likely been drinking alcohol. These findings suggested that LGBT+ students
do not enjoy equal access to certain activities at Surrey, for example, Tease was deemed
safe but a couple of homophobic occurrences were cited as reasons to be concerned about
leaving the club night. In fact, an overarching finding which ran through many responses
from LGBT+ staff and students was that they did not engage with the University as much as
they could due to an anticipation of experiencing prejudice. Some participants said they felt
safest behind closed doors on campus and a few referenced how they would never consider
holding their partners hand on campus for fear of it being received negatively.
5. While many respondents and key informants referred to specific LGBT+ events and groups
on campus there remained an absence of awareness about the ‘B’ and the ‘T’ in the
acronym. Several respondents noted the lack of attention paid to bisexual and trans people
and issues on campus. In the survey incidences of biphobic and transphobic language was
evidenced and some participants made it clear that this was also evidenced within the
LGBT+ society on campus. Indeed our key informants were much less likely to know bisexual
and trans members of staff and students than lesbian and gay staff and students.
6. Finally, throughout responses to both parts of the study, there was a call from many
participants for leadership in relation to LGBT+ initiatives on campus. Many key informants
and staff members (both academic and non-academic) felt uncertain about where and who
they could turn to in the event of an LGBT issue arising while at work. Many people called for
more visible and stronger support from senior management and again called for diverse
events and activities to engage all LGBT+ people at Surrey.
Recommendations for change
There is a need for the University to visibly signal that LGBT+ staff and students are valued part of
campus life. The University should indicate how it would like to know of any homophobic, biphobic
and transphobic events and follow these up with committed support from senior management.
There is a need for staff training for those who would like to move forward with initiatives but are
unsure of how to do so. This can include training on being aware of heteronormative and
cisgenderist cultures and knowing who to go to in the event of not being certain how to best deal
with a situation.
Specific attention is needed in relation
to the intersections of LGBT+
communities and faith communities.
Only a small minority of our respondents
reported being religious, in fact several
people shared concerns regarding other
people’s reactions to their sexuality in
relation to differing religious and cultural
beliefs.
Tease was considered a central event
for LGBT+ people at Surrey and so
should be maintained and made more
secure. It may be necessary for some
areas of the University to recognise the
importance of the event and assist in
developing the security and accessibility of the event.
LGBT+ events at Surrey should be supported and promoted at the University. Events should be
more regular and diverse in order to welcome a wider more diverse range of people and to
encourage LGBT+ community on campus.
The students Union, as well as other areas of the University, should develop more all gender
toilets to further accommodate and welcome trans people on campus. There should be more
awareness regarding all gender toilets already on campus and members of the University should be
made aware of the policy which states: ‘All Staff and Students will have access to all necessary
facilities of the gender with which they identify. Asking a person to use disabled facilities is an
unacceptable way of administering a service to the specific needs of a trans person.’
The University should celebrate excellent work on LGBT+ issues on campus. This could be as part of
the excellence agenda in teaching, learning and research. Profiling LGBT+ role models on the website
would actively communicate how LGBT+ people and research are valued here at Surrey.
Steps to be taken to consult further with LGBT+ communities on campus. At present the campus
climate suggests LGBT+ people on campus are not supportive of efforts to monitor people’s sexuality
(as recommended by Stonewall). This report indicates that such an effort would generate fear and
non-responsiveness of the very community it is trying to represent. Therefore in order to do this at a
later date further active engagement by the University is necessary.
Who to contact
If you would like any more information about the LGBT+ campus climate project please email the
researchers:
Peter Hegarty
p.hegarty@surrey.ac.uk
Andrew King
andrew.king@surrey.ac.uk
Katherine Hubbard
k.a.hubbard@surrey.ac.uk
Sebastian Bartos
s.e.bartos@surrey.ac.uk
Or if you have any comments, concerns, complaints or questions about LGBT+ issues on campus you
can also contact the following people.
Angie Cousins – Head of Equality and Diversity
Peter Brinkley – Head of Security
Diane Watt – Chair of the LGBT Equality Group
Phil Powrie – LGBT champion
Resources:
Stonewall Scotland LGBT Communications guide:
http://www.stonewallscotland.org.uk/scotland/at_home/9288.asp
Stonewall Workplace guides:
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_work/research_and_guides/4907.asp