Project 3

Introduction

The purpose of my research is to examine how the minority groups of LGBT individuals and non-white races at the College of Coastal Georgia (CCGA) campus are treated in regards to feelings of acceptance as compared to discrimination. Specifically, I have set out to examine the prevalence of both violence and microaggressions against these minority groups. Another purpose is to examine the overlap between these two group’s experiences in relation to violence and microaggressions, both as an intersectional approach or simply as a comparison of results. Although great strides have been made towards accepting minority races and sexualities in US college campuses, it is a misconception to say that discrimination is gone altogether.

This topic is still relevant, as supported by Jon Hong, who states that “a growing body of research explores the predictors and correlates of heterosexist discrimination, such as physical attacks and verbal threats targeting sexual minority college students and young adults” (Hong 118). Along with this, Stacy Harwood states that while “many college campuses promote themselves as integrated multicultural spaces where students from diverse backgrounds live, study, and play together in unity...many students of color experience racial hostility and exclusion in their daily routines” (Harwood 1245). The information within this research as it focuses on diversity and inclusion should be a crucial focus for all college campuses. Access to an equal level of education without the unnecessary stressors of invalidation, discrimination, or harassment is the right of every student, not simply individuals of the majority sexual or racial groups.

Methods

The method used for collecting research data on violence and microaggressions on minority groups on the College of Coastal Georgia campus was a survey created through the online program Qualtrics. The survey was distributed to students attending CCGA or its faculty. Taking part in it was voluntary and required informed consent before proceeding, with participant data remaining completely anonymous. It was distributed through the CCGA student app on various social media sites and through the CCGA app's bulletin board. In addition to this, professors of the institution were requested to promote the survey through the CCGA’s D2L system.

The survey content consisted of 53 total questions, 12 of which were about demographics, 9 questions for each of the 4 different categories, and 5 questions about general observations about CCGA. The four different categories were targeted towards each minority group as follows: Race, Domestic Abuse Victims, LGBTQ+, and Disabled. The survey arranged these categories into “blocks”, where the first question identified whether the participant was a member of said community. If not, the participant would skip past the block and down to the next one. Demographics and general questions were not able to be skipped in this manner, meaning that the minimum number of questions a participant could answer was 21.

Demographics

• For the age category, 75% of respondents were in the 18-24 group, 11.54% were 25-34, 7.69% were 35-44, 3.85% were 45-54, and 1 was 55-64. None of the respondents reported being above the age of 64. The majority sex of participants was female (84.62%), with male being the minority (15.38%).
• For racial demographics, the majority of participants were white/Caucasian (68.33%), the remainder being of a minority race (31.67%). 16.67% of participants were Black/African American, 8.33% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% were Hispanic/Latino, and 1.67% were Native American/American Indian.
• For sexual orientation demographics, the majority of participants were Heterosexual/Straight (62.75%), 9.8% were Pansexual, 5.88% were lesbians, 3.92% were gay, 3.92% were Bisexual, and 1.96% were Asexual. In addition to this, 2 (3.92%) respondents selected the “Not Listed” write-in box, reporting being Bisexually Curious and Undecided, respectively.

Violence

*The answer category "Other" in these questions is a stand-in for the answer choice as it appeared on the survey- "I have been assaulted, but it wasn't for my race/sexual orientation/gender identity".

Microaggressions

*The full version of this question included a definition, quoted as follows "According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a microaggression is defined as a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group".

General Questions

*Due to the topic of my research, I excluded the categories "Women", "Men", and "The Disabled" from appearing in the below graph although they were present in the original survey question.

• In Figure 11, titled "How much do you agree with the following statement? CCGA is safe for ______.", answers for both minority races and sexual orientations/gender identities had similar results. "Agree" was the majority response for both categories of racial minorities and LGBTQ+, although racial minorities more so. The rest of the answers followed a similar trend, showing that participants considered CCGA to be a safer campus for racial minorities than for LGBTQ+ individuals. However, one person each selected the answer "Strongly Disagree" for both groups.

Discussion

The data from the survey my group took reports that overall, while both violence (including subcategory “hostility”) and microaggressions (including subcategory “discomfort”) are faced by minority groups on the College of Coastal Georgia campus, microaggressions are a far more prevalent issue. This is best displayed in the “General Questions” section of the results, in which only one individual reported witnessing violence on campus, while 48 other participants declined having witnessed violence. However, the results for microaggressions show a significant leap in confirmation, as at least 15 individuals experienced a microaggression on campus. The idea that while actual violence has declined at most college campuses, the problem of microaggressions still remaining alive and well is one that’s supported by other research in the field. Members of minority groups, such as LGBT or non-white individuals, are indeed statistically more likely to experience microaggressions. Elisa Fattoracci, author of the article “Greater than the Sum of Racism and Heterosexism” confirms this, saying microaggressions “for people of color (POC) and LGB individuals alike, are prevalent” (Fattoracci 2).

Microaggressions

In addition to this discovery, Fattoracci's research goes on to describe how individuals who are part of more than one such minority group are more likely to report a greater number or severity of microaggressions than individuals that only report being members of a single minority group. Individuals with multiple interlocking minority identities have unique experiences as compared to members of differing identities. The article backs this up, stating that their findings “suggest that social identities like gender and race/ethnicity or sexual orientation intertwine to form distinctive experiences, a phenomenon that extends to socioeconomic class, age, physical ability, and countless other factors” (2). These various minority identities can each be combined to create entirely new, unique experiences.

Due to the limitations in sample size of my group’s survey, it is difficult to confirm this intersectional approach in terms of the prevalence of microaggressions faced by individuals who are part of more than one minority group at once. Considering in demographics how roughly 67% of participants reported being white/Caucasian, and roughly 63% reported being heterosexual, a statistically likely estimate is that only about 5 respondents (roughly 10%) fulfill both the categories of being part of a racial and sexual minority. Despite insufficient data in our survey, however, the intersectional approach is thoroughly supported by a number of other studies, going on to also confirm that there are unique microaggressions for individuals who are part of more than one minority group. Since both the minority groups of LGBTQ+ and those of racial minorities in my group’s study report differing levels of microaggressions, it is logical to conclude that the experiences would also vary for individuals who are part of more than one minority group.

On college campuses, students that are part of the LGBTQ+ community experience various types of heterosexism, both in blatant homophobic verbal or physical harassment or in the form of microaggressions. Microaggressions are a more subtle form of discrimination that have a marked effect on LGBT individuals in the form of feelings of invalidation and mental health stress. As put by author Jun Hong in the article “Ecological Covariates of Subtle and Blatant Heterosexist Discrimination Among LGBQ College Students”, these microaggressions “involve everyday insults and indignations that communicate hostile, derogatory, and negative messages” against marginalized groups, including sexual minorities (Hong, 118). Results from our survey confirm that members of the LGBTQ+ community experience these detrimental messages, as participants of this minority group did indeed experience high levels of hostility, discomfort expressed from others around them, and microaggressions for their sample size. Following the same trend, CCGA students as a whole believe that the campus is slightly less safe for members of the LGBTQ+ community, as evidenced by the “General Questions” section. While the physical harassment mentioned in Hong’s research is not nearly as prevalent according to our results at the CCGA campus, microaggressions and hostility certainly are.

Going back to the article “Greater than the Sum of Racism and Heterosexism”, Fattoracci interprets the results of their study by saying “the intersectional ethnic and LGB microaggressions scale predicted a significant amount of variability in anxiety, social isolation, and informational support scores, above and beyond the racial/ethnic and LGB microaggressions variables alone or their interaction” (9). Therefore, the microaggressions experienced differ depending on the minority community the individual is a part of. Our survey’s data supports this finding in the category of microaggressions as well as in its subcategory, discomfort. Our findings show that LGBTQ+ participants appear to experience slightly more discrimination in terms of whether or not they feel they “make people uncomfortable” because of their sexual orientation. More participants of racial minorities confirmed that they did not. However, as for microaggressions themselves, our survey found that racial minority students at CCGA overall experience slightly more microaggressions than those of sexual minorities. However, whether experiences differ in severity or not, it is undeniable that any form of discrimination against a student on campus detracts from their overall learning experience and hosts a variety of negative mental effects.

In addition to this, our research supports the conclusion that, although college campuses are often thought of as multicultural and accepting spaces in the same manner of diversifying advancements, students of color at these institutions still face hostility and exclusion in the form of microaggressions just as LGBTQ+ students do. Although this form of racism is more subtle than blatant violence or hate speech, it still proves to be impactful to those affected by it over time. In the article “Everyday Racism in Integrated Spaces,” Stacy Anne Harwood points out how “students of color find themselves uniquely subjected to invalidation in the classroom, where they can feel both invisible and hypervisible” (Harwood 1248). This invalidation wears on students’ mental states as an unnecessary constant burden.

These students also find their academic experiences inhibited by microaggressions. As put by Harwood, “Students of color, particularly black students, reported either not being asked to join a study group or group project or being the last person asked, whereas Asian students experienced the reverse” (1253). She concludes that these racial biases diminish students’ access to the full learning experience. My group’s research supports the finding that racial minority students are impacted by discrimination in the form of hostility and microagressions. The majority of these students reported having experienced a microaggression on the CCGA campus as well as hostility because of their race. Overall, it is clear that microaggressions towards racial minorities on college campuses, including the CCGA campus, have a noteworthy negative effect on these students, and detracts from or even inhibits their education. Invalidation in the way they are perceived, racial biases in group work and preconceptions of intelligence, and hypervisibility as compared to white students are all unnecessary stressors on students of color.

Violence

Besides the issue of microaggressions, homophobia experienced by members of the LGBT community and racism experienced by members of racial minority groups can escalate to verbal and physical harassment. This behavior is intended to control the targets and cause harm, not to mention that it reflects on traditional biases against the marginalized groups (Hong, 118). Actual violence has been reported as being less common as compared to subtle forms of discrimination on college campuses. This conclusion aligns with my group’s research, as, while both minority groups reported having experienced violence and hostility, the number noticeably increased when switching from more blatant discrimination to subtle forms, such as discomfort expressed and microaggressions perceived.

Our results show that while the same number of racial and sexual minority individuals experienced physical violence, more LGBTQ+ students experienced hostility. This figures, considering that despite the fact that great advancements have been made in recent years concerning the acceptance of sexual minority groups, college campuses still have predominantly heterosexist environments. “Although colleges and universities in the U.S. have become increasingly diverse...inhospitality and prejudice towards sexual minorities remains pervasive on college campuses” (119). Discrimination against LGBT students not only puts a higher level of stress on them, but it can lead to negative mental health impacts or even physical harm in the rarer cases of violent harassment. All of these effects detract from the education the colleges offer to students of sexual minorities.

The Intersectional Perspective

To make matters more complex, LGBT individuals of color are more likely to interpret violence against them to be rooted in other factors such as racism and sexism, instead of solely homophobia, which white respondents are likely to interpret it as. As Doug Meyer, author of the article “An Intersectional Analysis of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) People’s Evaluations of Anti-Queer Violence” states, “accounting for the overlap of multiple systems of oppression typically provides for the most satisfactory understanding of anti-queer violence” (Meyer 868). LGBT respondents who were also Black or Latino/Latina interpreted discriminatory comments or violence against them as a sign that they had, in a sense, 'betrayed their race'. Meyer writes “lesbians and gay men of color viewed criticisms....about their sexuality as implying that they had inappropriately represented their racial communities” (867). However, white respondents did not interpret violence against them in this way.

The intersection of multiple minority identities, be it sexual, gender, or racial, alters the victim's perception of violence perpetrated against them. Unlike with white respondents, respondents of color found it difficult to determine whether the violence was because of their race or LGBT identity. Similarly, LGBT women found it difficult to determine whether their gender or sexuality was the cause. As for my group’s study, the average respondent to the survey was white, heterosexual, and female. While this offers interesting avenues in terms of exploring the role sexism plays in microaggressions and violence against women who are part of minority communities, it also could have skewed the results for the questions.

Due to Meyer’s finding that it is often difficult to determine whether a particular offense was because of one’s race, sex, or sexual orientation when the individual fills out more than one of those checkboxes, it is possible that the highly divided “block” approach of our survey limited the number of responses confirming microaggressions and violence. For example, a black lesbian may have ended up declining having experienced discrimination in some of the blocks due to uncertainty about which minority identity was the true root cause. With this in mind, it can be concluded overall that while violence is a much less prevalent issue on the CCGA campus for both the LGBTQ+ and racial minority groups as compared to microaggressions, it is possible that violence is being underreported due to the structure of our survey and lack of sufficient demographics. Further research is required to investigate these types of intersectional correlations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the research I conducted on discrimination on minority groups on the CCGA campus aligns with other research findings in the field stating that microaggressions are a much more prevalent issue faced by these groups than physical violence. My survey data supports this idea, as many more participants confirmed having experienced this form of discrimination, compared to a very small sample size in both the blocks and in the "General Questions" that confirmed having experienced or witnessed physical violence on the campus, respectively. In addition to this, my findings show a slight increase in intolerance on the campus towards members of the LGBTQ+ community as compared to individuals of racial minorities. In general, however, it is clear that as compared to the majority groups of white, heterosexual students attending CCGA, students that are part of one or more minority groups statistically experience higher levels of discrimination.

Limitations

My study had quite a few unforseen limitations, mainly that of the COVID-19/Coronavirus crisis changing the structure of the project itself, which was originally intended to be a group project. The quarantine resulting from the pandemic made it so that distributing surveys was more challenging than we originally anticipated, since the only option remaining was online distribution through the school's website. Unfortunately, this limited the total number of replies we could have received if under ideal conditions. Additionally, switching without warning to a solo project left me with data about minority groups that I had never planned on dealing with or researching, such as that about domestic abuse victims and the disabled. Although I was able to simply exclude this data from my study, I would have preferred to have more questions devoted to my topic specifically in order to increase the sample size of participants who were a part of the minority group I was researching.

Besides the issues presented by the pandemic, my study could have been vastly improved with a larger and more diverse sample size. The majority of participants were white and straight, which reflects accurate demographics of CCGA, but for the purposes of this study, isn't useful for anything besides the survey's "general" questions. For the questions themselves, some answers could have been improved in terms of conciseness and eliminating vagueness, such as how the choices "might or might not", "probably not" or "probably yes" could have been reduced to a simpler, more appropriate yes-or-no format.

Future Research

In future research, I hope to have both a larger and more diverse sample size. The survey received 51 answers, but most people taking the survey were not the right demographics to answer questions contained within the blocks, and only answered the general questions. A sample size such as 100 or even 150 is what I would shoot for next, as well as a survey that targeted minority groups more specifically. Said survey would have clearer answer choices as well. In future research, it would also be interesting as well as much more useful to take an intersectional approach for the groups of racial minorities and LGBT individuals, instead of simply stacking their results side-by-side for comparison.

References

• Fattoracci, Elisa S. M., et al. “Greater than the Sum of Racism and Heterosexism: Intersectional Microaggressions toward Racial/Ethnic and Sexual Minority Group Members.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Mar. 2020. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/cdp0000329. Accessed 9 April 2020.

• Harwood, Stacy Anne, et al. “Everyday Racism in Integrated Spaces: Mapping the Experiences of Students of Color at a Diversifying Predominantly White Institution.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers, vol. 108, no. 5, Sept. 2018, pp. 1245–1259. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/24694452.2017.1419122. Accessed 10 April 2020.

• Hong, Jun, et al. “Ecological Covariates of Subtle and Blatant Heterosexist Discrimination Among LGBQ College Students.” Journal of Youth & Adolescence, vol. 45, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 117–131. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0362-5. Accessed 11 April 2020.

• Meyer, Doug. “An Intersectional Analysis of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (Lgbt) People’s Evaluations of Anti-Queer Violence.” Gender and Society, vol. 26, no. 6, 2012, p. 849. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.41705739&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=bru1. Accessed 16 Feb, 2020.