Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
The Same Boxes to Check
Scott Jaschik
January 26, 2011; Inside Higher Ed
The Common Application has rejected a proposal that it add optional questions on sexual
orientation and gender identity. The board of the organization issued a statement suggesting that
colleges have other ways to indicate support for applicants who are gay or who don't identify
with traditional gender categories, and that adding the questions could pose problems.
Advocates for such students have been pushing the Common Application to add the
questions, with the hope that doing so would send a powerful message to the students who apply
to the 414 colleges that are members, a group that includes many of the most prestigious colleges
in the United States.
Advocates said that just as colleges use information that students volunteer on their ethnicity,
academic interests, socioeconomic background and many other factors, they should invite
students to consider sharing information about sexual orientation and gender identity, so that
colleges can offer relevant information and so they see the growing number of such applicants
who want to attend supportive institutions.
The statement adopted by the board of the Common Application left open the possibility that the
questions might yet be added at some point in the future, calling for an additional review "later
this decade" that would evaluate, among other things, "evolving cultural norms."
The board document cites several reasons for rejecting the new optional questions. "Many
admission officers and secondary school counselors expressed concern regarding how this
question might be perceived by students, even though it would be optional. One common worry
was that any potential benefits to adding the question would be outweighed by the anxiety and
uncertainty students may experience when deciding if and how they should answer it," says the
statement.
Further, the Common Application notes that it has just added -- under a menu of activities that
students could indicate they participated in while in high school -- a category of "LGBT," so
students can indicate their activism on behalf of gay rights. Such activism is growing in high
schools, frequently through gay-straight alliances, and the Common Application statement
acknowledges this.
"While advocacy falls short of confirming an applicant’s sexual orientation, it will help members
identify applicants who may benefit from targeted outreach efforts. Applicants also have the
opportunity to report personal information of any kind in their application essays and/or the
Additional Information section," the statement says.
On the issue of gender identity, the rejected proposal would have continued to ask students to
report their legally defined gender, but would have also given applicants the chance to indicate if
other terms more accurately described them, so that students who identify as a different gender
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
than is on their birth certificates, or who identify as transgender or without a traditional gender,
could indicate as much.
The Common Application statement says that the addition of other categories would "disrupt
members’ abilities to comply with federal reporting guidelines" and that very few colleges have
sought the information. However, the statement says that the organization will add a new
question box (a feature throughout the application that provides additional information for
applicants on questions they might have) that would specifically tell applicants that they are
welcome to provide additional information elsewhere about their sex or gender identity, beyond
what is collected for federal reporting requirement.
To arrive at its decision, the Common Application board hired an outside consultant to review
applications of colleges inside and outside the United States, held many meetings, and surveyed
its membership (and received a 75 percent response rate).
Shane L. Windmeyer, the founder of Campus Pride, a national group that works on behalf of gay
students and sponsors college fairs at which gay students can meet college representatives,
criticized both the process and the outcome of the Common Application's consideration of the
issue. Campus Pride formally requested the changes and was the most vocal proponent of them.
"The Common Application is acting like a parent of the 1950s," he said. Windmeyer stressed
that the proposed new questions were optional, so any applicant made uncomfortable could
simply avoid them. And he also said that it would be possible -- by asking a second question on
gender after one about birth certificates -- for colleges to meet reporting requirements while still
reaching out to students with a range of gender identities.
Windmeyer said that at the college fairs his group organizes, there are many high school students
who are comfortable with their identities, who have faced harassment in high school, and who
want to be certain that they are looking at colleges that will be welcoming. "This is about
allowing students to be who they are as they apply to college, and for them to see that they can
find a safe place," he said.
By asking students about race and ethnicity and many other topics, but not asking about sexual
orientation and gender identity, college applications send a message, he said. "They are out of
touch with the needs and concerns of LGBT students," he said.
Windmeyer noted that the board's statement about revisiting the issue suggested an awareness
that asking such questions will some day not be seen as a big deal. "It's just a matter of time," he
said.
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
Commentary
Jay Garvey
University of Maryland at College Park
June 2012
The decision from the Common Application’s board to reject the proposal to add sexual
orientation and gender expression has generated both support and criticism. Since the decision,
numerous colleges and universities have debated adding sexual orientation and gender identity
admissions questions to their applications. In fall 2011, Elmhurst College became the first
undergraduate college to ask prospective students an optional demographic question related to
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identities on their admission form. Around the
same time, The Harvard Crimson reported that The College was considering adding language to
their admissions application to allow applications to self-identify as LGBT. Most recently, the
University of California Academic Senate recommended adding identifying demographic
questions for LGBT prospective students. The UC Board of Admissions and Relations with
Schools is considering the proposal and will make a decision soon. As other institutions begin
considering the addition of these questions, they must weigh the costs and advantages in the
context of their college or university.
Those who do not support adding optional LGBT demographic questions highlight key
reasons related to the personal experiences of applicants and students. Most of these concerns
involve fear for data disclosure, usage, and access. When deciding whether or not to disclose
their sexual or gender identities, LGBT students must negotiate the intricacies of making public
this type of information across settings and people (Schope, 2002). Prospective students may fear
that institutions will use the data in a discriminatory way (e.g., related to admissions, scholarship
distribution, and residence life room assignments), and may have concern for who will have
access to their responses, namely, parents, guardians, and high school personnel. There is also
fear on campuses about which personnel (e.g., advisors, student service personnel, faculty) will
have access to students’ records. The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher
Education (CAS, 2009): Self-Assessment Guide for LGBT Programs and Services states in their
ethics section that personnel must maintain privacy and confidentiality, including student sexual
orientation and gender identity, and that information distributed must be accurate and free of
deception. If/when colleges and universities begin collecting sexual and gender identity on their
admissions forms, they too must adhere to these ethical guidelines.
Social identities (e.g., sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity) are fluid and evolving,
particularly for traditionally-aged college and university students. For many LGBT individuals,
their undergraduate experience is often the place where they disclose their sexual- and genderminority identities to others (Evans, 2001; Evans & Broido, 2002). Critics of adding LGBT
demographic questions to admissions applications are skeptical about the accuracy of responses,
particularly because of the fluid and evolving nature of LGBT identities. When campus
administrators talk about the point of collection for this information, they should also discuss
what systems exist that allow students to make changes in their information over time. Having an
alternate system may also provide students to self-identify past the point of admissions if they
decide to disclose their identity later in their college career. This will allow for more accurate
institutional data across students’ tenure in higher education.
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
At the institutional level, critics cite concerns for colleges and universities that have missions to
serve special populations, particularly religiously-affiliated (Wolff & Himes, 2010) and
minority-serving institutions (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000), in adapting these questions to
admissions forms. These institutions have struggled with LGBT issues due to religious doctrine
as well as cultural perceptions of gender and sexual minorities. Among predominantly White
institutions, there too are apprehensions for adding LGBT admissions questions. Particularly,
colleges and universities have expressed concerns about alumni and donor relations, and what
message the institution is sending by including such questions on admissions forms (Garvey &
Drezner, 2012).
Supporters of adding optional LGBT questions on admissions forms cite benefits at both
personal and institutional levels as well. Personally, including LGBT questions reaffirms
students that colleges and universities recognize and celebrate a person’s sexual and gender
identities. Asking LGBT-related questions on admissions applications symbolizes an affirming
and warm campus climate. This is especially important for LGBT students, as they generally
perceive the campus climate as less inviting, or chillier, than their peers (Brown, Clarke,
Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig, 2004; Evans & Broido, 2002; Garber, 2002). Those who
experience a welcoming and warm climate are more likely to yield positive academic and
developmental outcomes (Milem, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Rankin, 2004; Reason,
Terenzini, & Domingo, 2007; Umbach & Kuh 2006).
Recently, researchers have examined campus climate and its importance for LGBT
students. When LGBT students experience a hostile climate, these individuals are less likely to
come out and disclose their marginalized sexual and gender identities (Gortmaker & Brown,
2006; Rankin, 2003; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). The coming out process can
be an especially vulnerable time, during which discriminatory experiences can hinder the
development of a healthy LGBT identity (Gortmaker & Brown, 2006). Having LGBT optional
questions on admissions applications may serve as a strong indicator for prospective students
that their college or university affirms and values LGBT people.
In addition, being able to identify LGBT people from the beginning of their enrollment
can open engagement with curricular and co-curricular involvements particular to the LGBT
campus community. For LGBT students, curricular and co-curricular involvements can influence
the coming out process and identity development (Gortmaker & Brown, 2006). Research shows
that identity-based spaces on campus, particularly sexuality and gender resource centers and
offices, are critical places where LGBT students can form their identities (Rankin, 2003). The
sooner students connect to these involvement and resources, the more impact it will have on their
learning and development.
Higher education personnel may use admissions data in a variety of academic and student
affairs capacities. For example, institutions may target admissions for underrepresented groups,
including LGBT students (Young, 2011). According to Einhaus and colleagues (2008), though,
only four percent of higher education institutions “engage in any recruitment activities that
specifically target LGBT students” (p. 22). Staff may use admissions demographic data to justify
the funding for more campus resources for marginalized communities, and assist residence life
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
units in assigning housing. However, some personnel fear that if there are low numbers of LGBT
students reported, their funding will be reduced. In advancement offices, staff can use admissions
data to target alumni for participation in affinity groups and/or request support for specific
development initiatives (Garvey & Drezner, 2012).
Admissions data can also track retention and graduation rates for specific communities,
yet few institutions have documentation of LGBT student success because this demographic
information is not collected universally. The National Center for Transgender Equality released
their 2011 report on national transgender discrimination, documenting oppression against
transgender and gender non-conforming Americans. Regarding discrimination in education, the
report revealed that harassment among transgender and gender non-conforming students was so
severe that it led almost one-sixth of respondents to leave their schools. Having knowledge of the
retention of LGBT people may justify the need to target resources and campus diversity efforts
to increase the likelihood of success for this specific community of students.
Institutions considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity questions may want
to consult the references below to understand the impact of this decision in the context of their
own institutions. The Williams Institute (2009) is another resource to seek out in discovering
best practices for asking LGB-related questions in survey instruments. Gaydata.org also provides
information on gathering LGBT identity data and measures.
References and Suggested Readings
Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the campus
climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students using a multiple
perspective approach. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 8-26.
Center for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2009). CAS self assessment
guide for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender programs and services. Washington, DC:
Author.
Einhaus, C., Viento, W., & Croteau, J. (2004). Admissions comes out: Recruiting lesbian,
bisexual, gay and transgender youth. College and University Journal, 80(2), 11-17.
Evans, N. J. (2001). The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in university
communities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual
identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 181-198). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Evans, N., & Broido, E. (2002). The experiences of lesbian and bisexual women in college
residence halls: Implications for addressing homophobia and heterosexism. Journal of
Lesbian Studies, 6(3/4), 29-40.
Garber, L. (2002). Weaving a wide net: The benefits of integrating campus projects to combat
homophobia. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(3/4), 21-28.
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
Garvey, J., & Drezner, N. D. (2012). Advancement staff and alumni advocates: Leaders in
engaging LGBTQ alumni. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Vancouver, BC.
Gortmaker, V. J., & Brown, R. D. (2006). Out of the college closet: Differences in perceptions
and experiences among out and closeted lesbian and gay students. College Student
Journal, 40, 606-619.
Hart, J., & Lester, J. (2011). Starring students: Gender performance at a women’s college.
NASPA Journal about Women in Higher Education, 4(2), 193-217.
Milem, J. (2003). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiple sectors. In M.
Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Compelling interest: Examining the
evidence on racial dynamics in higher education (pp. 126-169). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the
national transgender discrimination survey. Washington, DC: Author.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Program for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health. (2012). Recommend. Retrieved
from www.gaydata.org
Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people: A
national perspective. New York: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy
Institute.
Rankin, S. (2004). Campus climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, & transgender people. The
Diversity Factor, 12(1), 1-3.
Rankin, S., Blumenfeld, W. J., Weber, G. N., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher education for
LGBT people. Campus Pride.
Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Domingo, R. J. (2007). Developing social and personal
competence in the first year of college. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 271-299.
Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influencing the disclosure of sexual
orientation by gay men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14(1), 1-22.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, race microagressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60-73.
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
Ta-Pryor, J. T., Ta-Pryor, D., & Hart, J. (2011). Searching for home: Transgender students and
experiences with residential housing. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC.
Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Students' experiences with diversity at liberal arts colleges:
Another claim for distinctiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 169-192.
The Williams Institute. (2009). Best practices for asking questions about sexual orientation on
surveys. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Wolff, J. R., & Himes, H. L. (2010). Purposeful exclusion of sexual minority youth in Christian
higher education: The implications of discrimination. Christian Higher Education, 9,
439-460.
Young, A. (2011). Gay students: The latest outreach target at many colleges.” Journal of College
Admissions, 39-20.
Discussion Questions
For those who may wish to use this article for teaching and or professional development
purposed, here are some guiding questions that may be helpful:
1. What is the process and strategy for making the decision to add LGBT questions on
admissions applications? Who is involved?
2. What campus units might be affected by the decision to add optional LGBT demographic
questions to admissions applications? How?
3. What other data collection instruments used in higher education institutions might
consider adding optional LGBT questions? Why?
4. What alternatives are there to collecting LGBT demographic information besides on
admissions forms? What are the perceived benefits and challenges for these options?
5. Critics of adding LGBT demographic questions are skeptical of the accuracy of
responses. Do these same critiques apply to demographic categories already included on
the Common Application (e.g., race/ethnicity, biological sex). Why or why not?
6. How might the decision to add LGBT questions affect the development and well-being
of LGBT and questioning students?
7. Given the fluid nature of gender identity, expression, and sexual orientation, what are the
implications for policy and practice when working with students?
8. As a practitioner or scholar, would you advocate for including these questions in
admissions forms? Why or why not?