TO:

The University of Arizona
Diversity Action Council

FROM:

Sandy Fagan, Member
Equity Committee

DATE: August 31, 1998

SUBJECT: 1998 LGB Survey Results - A Report

In 1998, the Diversity Action Council (DAC) made $582 available to a committee called EQUITY to conduct a survey of the UA’s campus climate and of associated issues so as to measure contemporary understanding of employee attitudes toward sexual diversity. EQUITY is a sub-committee of the campus’ OUTreach group.

The survey was conducted in February 1998. A printed survey of 43 items was sent to a random sampling of 3000 University of Arizona employees. 688 completed surveys were returned. The number of 1998 surveys distributed and the rate of response was a lmost identical to the 1992 survey. Throughout this report "gay/lesbian/bisexual" will be abbreviated g/l/b. The purpose of the survey was to look at the present campus climate as regards g/l/b issues and to compare these survey results to the results from a comparable survey conducted in September 1992. All of the questions on the 1992 survey were included in the 1998 survey. This memorandum will provide a qualitative reflection on the survey results and comparison.

The 1998 survey was divided into six subject areas. Items 1-10 concerned demographic information. Items 11-20 addressed administrative policies and climate. Items 21-26 involved the campus climate created for students by employees. Respondents were gi ven the opportunity to evaluate their department or unit in items 27-32. Information about awareness of campus organizations and other miscellaneous information was sought in items 33-38. Lastly, items 39-43 surveyed the respondents’ knowledge of the OU Treach and EQUITY groups on campus.

The following are highlights of the 1998 survey and comments on the comparison of the 1992 and 1998 responses where significant:

• The proportion of responses from each of the constituent groups was consistent with the proportion of responses in 1992.
• Fewer males and more females responded in 1998 than in 1992.
• In 1992, the largest number of responses were from persons associated with the University fewer than 6 years; in 1998, the largest number of responses were from person associated with the University for six years or more.
• The proportion of responses by sexual orientation remained constant, e.g. in 1992, 91.5% of respondents identified themselves as "heterosexual", as compared with 89% in 1998.
• As to the level of being "out" (publicly identifying as g/l/b), g/l/b respondents who said they were "not at all out" dropped from 20.5% in 1992 to just 3% in 1998. Those who saw themselves as moderately "out" dropped f rom 19.4% in 1992 to 10% in 1998 and those who considered themselves "very much out" increased from 13.9% in 1992 to 28% in 1998.
• A greater number of respondents in 1998 were somewhat older (45+ years) as opposed to 1992 respondents (under 45 years).
• As in 1992, 1998 respondents were overwhelmingly "white, non-hispanic."
• A greater proportion of 1998 respondents declared a religious affiliation than did the 1992 respondents and most (8 out of 10) indicated that their religion had little influence over their views on homosexuality.

• In 1998, 13% of heterosexual and 12% of g/l/b respondents indicated that the UA has created a climate where people are comfortable being open; the 1992 proportion was 7.4% and 2.9%, respectively.
• Interestingly, 1998 respondents indicated greater concern that a UA employee could be fired or passed over for promotion solely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation with no legal recourse.
• As to domestic partner benefits:
• In 1992, 50.8% of heterosexual respondents thought benefits should be offered to same sex partners; in 1998, 61% answered, "Yes." Still, 4 out of 10 respondents either "Didn’t Know" or said "No", about the same proportio n as in 1992.
• In 1998, the proportion of g/l/b respondents who felt heterosexual persons in committed relationships should not get benefits increased from 5.9% in 1992 to 21% in 1998.
• Neither the 1992 or the 1998 group felt strongly that sexual orientation was a deciding factor in tenure decisions in the past, not do they feel that such is presently occurring.

• As to discrimination toward students based on sexual orientation, in 1992, 35.3% of respondents knew of such occurring; in 1998, 15% knew of such occurring.
• All agreed that orientations for New Students, Residence Life, Greek organizations (and, via comments, New Employees) was inadequate as regards encouraging respect for the civil rights of all persons.

• The 1998 survey reflected a marked increased of perceived respect for g/l/b individuals in the workplace by "immediate supervisor", "co-workers", "department head", "others" and "students". Overal l, in 1992, 9.9% of heterosexual respondents and 11.8% of g/l/b respondents thought the treatment of or response to g/l/b/ persons in the workplace by these groups was "Excellent." In 1998, 27% of heterosexual respondents and 41% of g/l/b respo ndents thought so.

• As to awareness of campus groups, several groups existed in 1992 that do not exist in 1998 and visa versa. With regard to DAC, 26% of heterosexual respondents and 17% of g/l/b respondents in the 1998 survey knew of DAC.
• Very few respondents in 1992 or in 1998 reported being targets of harassment due to sexual orientation. However, in 1998, those g/l/b respondents who reported harassment overwhelmingly reported such harassment occurred off campus, not on.
• Most (50%) of 1998 respondents felt they would (could) report such harassment to their immediate supervisor or the Affirmative Action Office or to their department head.

As expected, they were many, many comments regarding the survey and the overall issue of g/l/b issues at UA and those comments were no different from those received in 1992. Interestingly, many comments reflected the position that sexual orientation is a personal, private matter and should not be discussed in the workplace...several comments reflected variations on the theme that "sexuality does not have any place in the workplace." There were many comments on the theme that "we are al l the same", so everyone should be treated similarly (respectfully).

As to domestic partner benefits, primary opposition to the concept was the thought that benefits should be offered to married couples only. Many respondents commented that offering such benefits should require that partners demonstrate commitment and longevity in order to qualify. "Cost" was virtually a non-issue for the 1998 respondents.

The next step, of course, is to consider the responses and proffered comments and determine a strategy to address areas of concern. The University’s Commission on the Status of Women also conducted a campus climate survey and their results coupled wit h these will contribute significantly to the development of a strategic and well-focused campus effort to improve the campus climate and, therefore, the quality of life, for all members of the University of Arizona community.