Today, I am celebrating because I work at an institution that is positively contributing to the health, wellbeing, and education of LGBTQ+ people. The Ohio State University was selected as one of 40 institutions nationwide for the Campus Pride “Best of the Best” index for LGBTQ+ students. The university received a 5-star rating on an index that rates institutional commitment to LGBTQ-inclusive policies, programs and practices. According to Campus Pride, campuses are scored from 0 to 100 on the Campus Pride Index, which assesses the presence of LGBTQ-inclusive policies, programs, and practices. Forty institutions scored 93 percent or higher and received a 5/5 ranking and place on the “Best of the Best” list. This rating is especially noteworthy given that OSU is a public university situated in a more socio-politically conservative state.
What makes an LGBTQ+ inclusive campus? The LGBTQ+ Campus Pride Index was developed by Campus Pride with a team of national LGBTQ researchers. The tool includes 50+ self-assessment questions, which (according to the CPI website) correspond to 8 LGBTQ-friendly factors:
- LGBTQ Policy Inclusion
- LGBTQ Support & Institutional Commitment
- LGBTQ Academic Life
- LGBTQ Student Life
- LGBTQ Housing
- LGBTQ Campus Safety
- LGBTQ Counseling & Health
- LGBTQ Recruitment and Retention Efforts
Individual questions are weighted to emphasize specific components, which are determined to be more additive to an LGBTQ+ inclusive, welcoming, and respectful campus. All 8 LGBTQ-friendly factors are equally weighted in the overall score.
What’s missing? While I’m celebrating today, as a public health scientist focused on LGBTQ+ health, I’m also aware the Campus Pride Index is not without gaps. In all transparency, I have never seen the full CPI instrument, so it’s challenging to evaluate its strengths and limitations. However, there are broad areas for potential bias we should all be aware of.
To start, the CPI relies on an opt-in method; campuses self-elect to participate, leading to selection bias. The item is also a self-report survey, which is filled out by campus administration, which increases the risk for self-report bias due to social desirability, or the tendency for people (or institutions) to generally present themselves in a favorable fashion. The CPI only rates the presence of positive/supportive policies and programs. Now, I’m all for being strengths-based (we need a little joy in the world!), but it’s important that we also understand how these strengths-based, LGBTQ+ programs and policies are enacted in real life. Unfortunately, the CPI does not include student, faculty, or other staff experiences, perspectives, or attitudes. This is problematic because the presence of policies does not necessarily reflect people’s lived experiences of those policies. Take these examples:
- A university may have a policy that supports inclusive housing for transgender and gender diverse students; however, the process of accessing those services may or may not be challenging for students depending on how the information is disseminated and who is running the program. For a while I worked at an institution that had an LGBTQ-supportive dorm housing program, which was known to LGBTQ+ and allied faculty, but not well advertised on campus
- A college may have paid staff responsible for LGBTQ support services; however, there is often not enough staff to meet demand. I have worked with multiple students (across college and university institutions in three states) and all have experienced challenges accessing LGBTQ+ supportive counseling services through campus health. Sure, all of these institutions had LGBTQ+ supportive paid staff, but most were under-staffed and with waitlists. When LGBTQ+ students were referred to counselors not trained specifically in LGBTQ+ needs, they were often met with microaggressions or, worse, outright hostility.
Finally, none of the CPI ranking indices take into account the experiences of multiple minoritized LGBTQ+ students, including BIPOC LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ students with disabilities, neurodivergent LGBTQ+ students, and first gen LGBTQ+ students. These groups’ experiences of campus climate, policies and programs are unique, as these students experience intersectional discrimination and oppression because they hold multiple minoritized identities. Their lack of specific inclusion in the CPI measures is a HUGE gap in this instrument and needs addressed in future iterations.
Let me say it again… the presence of an LGBTQ+ policy or program does not necessarily reflect ALL LGBTQ+ people’s lived experiences of those policies. That is, the presence of an LGBTQ+ supportive policy does not automatically confer LGBTQ+ people’s safety and wellbeing on campus. BUT, policies and programs are critical foundations for increasing LGBTQ+ people’s safety and wellbeing at our university.
So… are we still celebrating? Yes, we’re still celebrating! There are few measures of campus climate for LGBTQ+ people; even fewer through which we can compare institutions nationwide. The Ohio State University is doing an excellent job putting in place foundational policies and programs to support LGBTQ+ people on campus. OSU is also doing the work of conducting their own campus climate assessments (see the 2019 Campus Sexual Violence Survey and the 2020 LGBTQ+ campus climate survey, led by the Undergraduate Student Government) to accompany national rankings, like the CPI. My hope is that as we learn about our strengths and limitations as an academic community, that we continue to ACT to improve our policies, programs, and their implementation to benefit diverse groups of LGBTQ+ students, staff, and faculty.
Looking for info on LGBTQ+ programs at OSU? Visit the LGBTQ+ at Ohio State Website.