A Glimpse of the Invisible
Membership
A National Survey of Lesbigay Greek Members. by Douglas N. Case
Over the course of the past few years, there has been substantial
public attention to the issue of lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men (which for simplicity I
refer to as "lesbigays") serving in the military. A great deal of research on
the topic has been undertaken, resulting in several published works, including Randy
Shilts' best selling book Conduct Unbecoming. In many ways, the social dynamics of
lesbigays in college fraternities and sororities parallels that of lesbigays in the armed
forces. In both cases, there are cohesive single-gender units of young adults in which the
existence of homosexuality or bisexuality is perceived as threatening. Unlike the flurry
of information chronicling the experiences of lesbigay members of the military, however,
there has been virtually no published research on the experiences lesbigay members of
fraternities and sororities.
A few years ago, I began an informal research project
to attempt to shed some light on this unexplored area. Like many gay fraternity men, as an
undergraduate I led a very "closeted" life, and it wasn't until after I had been
graduated that I met other gay men with Greek affiliation. With some colleagues, I devised
a survey to distribute to gay fraternity undergraduate members and alumni so I could
compare their experiences -- and perhaps even better understand myself.
Initially the surveys were distributed, with the
assistance of some friends and associates, by word of mouth. From the initial responses, a
32-question survey instrument was refined -- and at the request of several individuals,
expanded to include both men and women with Greek affiliation who currently consider
themselves gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Methods for distributing the survey included publishing
announcements in various gay and lesbian publications, posting announcements to newsgroups
and electronic mail discussion lists on the Internet, and referrals from other
respondents. A little over 500 responses were eventually received with a good cross
section of ages (ranging from 19 to 59 years old, with a mean age of 31) and regions of
the country. Since the respondents were self-selected (in that they learned of the survey
and took the initiative to respond), the results may not be completely representative of a
true random sample of all lesbigay fraternity and sorority members (if it were possible to
devise such).
Approximately 90% of the responses received were from
men. There are several reasons for the low proportion of women respondents: (1) The survey
was expanded to include women after about 100 responses from men had already been
received. (2) Although studies to determine the number of gays and lesbians in the general
population have yielded varying results (ranging from 1% to 15%, depending upon research
methodology and the definition of what constitutes a homosexual), the studies have fairly
consistently found that gay men outnumber lesbians by a factor ranging up to 2-to-1. (3)
The survey was more prominently publicized in some publications oriented more toward gay
men. (4) As indicated below, women respondents tended to develop their homosexual or
bisexual identity later than men. (5) It is also possible that gay/bisexual male students
find the lifestyle of the Greek collegiate community more appealing than do
lesbian/bisexual women.
The percentage of Greek students who are lesbigay is
difficult to accurately determine. Many students are still in the process of developing
their sexual identity while in college. For example, of the survey respondents, over a
third of the men and 80% of the women self-identified as heterosexual at the time they
were initiated, but by graduation only 20% of the men and a little over 40% of the women
identified themselves as heterosexual. Many identified themselves as bisexual for a period
of time before accepting a self-identity as gay or lesbian. In terms of sexual experience,
45% of the men had their first post-pubescent homosexual experience prior to college, 39%
during college, and 15% after college. For women, the corresponding figures are 12% prior
to college, 52% during college, and 37% after college.
Of the male survey respondents, the average total
number of fellow chapter members who the respondent currently knew with certainty (rather
than mere speculation) to be gay or bisexual was 3.5 (a total of 4.5 if the respondent
himself is included). Often, the respondents did not discover or confirm a fellow member's
homosexual or bisexual orientation until after they both had been graduated. With an mean
reported chapter size of 52, it is probable that the average respondent matriculated with
75 - 90 different brothers over the course of his undergraduate career. Thus, a total of
approximately 5 - 6% of the chapter membership was known by the respondents to be
gay/bisexual. The women reported knowing with certainty that an average of 2.9 fellow
members were lesbian/bisexual, with an average chapter size of 81, meaning that a total of
approximately 3 - 4% of the chapter membership was known to be lesbian or bisexual. The
actual percentages of lesbigay members would, of course, be higher, to include those
others not known with certainty by the respondents to be lesbigay.
The data collected suggests that lesbigay students join
fraternities and sororities for reasons similar to those one would expect from a sample of
heterosexual students. The top three reasons listed were (1) friendship and camaraderie,
(2) social activities, and (3) a support group and sense of belonging. Likewise, the
benefits of Greek membership reported by the lesbigay students were similar to those that
would likely be reported by other students -- the top three being (1) social and
interpersonal skills, (2) long-term friendships, and (3) leadership skills. Sexual
attraction or the opportunity to meet potential same-gender sexual partners was not a
significant reason for joining a fraternity or sorority; only 3% marked "to meet
members of the same sex" as one of their top three reasons for joining. A little more
than a third, however, reported having at least one sexual encounter with a member of
their chapter while in college.
One area where lesbigay fraternity/sorority members
appear to differ from their heterosexual peers is in chapter leadership. Over 80% of the
men and over 60% of the women had held at least one of the following executive committee
positions in their chapter: president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, new member
educator, rush chair and social chair. Over 20% of the men had served as president of
their chapter, although only 6% of the women had served as president. This tendency toward
"overachievement" may reflect a desire for validation and acceptance by the
group. Another explanation may be that lesbigay members channel their energies into
organizational leadership that others apply toward developing heterosexual relationships.
Over 70% of the respondents, indicated that they had
encountered homophobic or heterosexist attitudes within their chapter, usually in the form
of derogatory jokes or comments. Homophobia was also frequently evidenced in membership
selection. If a rushee was rumored or perceived to be gay or lesbian, the chapter was
likely to summarily vote against offering the rushee a bid to join. Likewise if a pledge
was discovered or believed to be gay or lesbian, the chapter was inclined to dismiss the
pledge. More often than not, the initiated lesbigay member(s) would voice no opposition to
the discrimination, fearing that to do so might cause other members to question their
motivation. One man even wrote, "A rushee was blackballed because of suspected
homosexuality. I was one of the three who blackballed him. Five years later I met this
individual again at a bar, and we have been lovers for eight years now (and going
strong)!"
While chapters seemed generally unwilling to pledge or
initiate a student thought to be lesbian or gay, greater tolerance was demonstrated if the
homosexual orientation of an initiate became known. About 40% of the respondents
"came out" (i.e., revealed their sexual orientation) to at least one other
member of their chapter while they were in college. Here there is a sharp generational
difference. For example, of those who were graduated before 1980, only 12% "came
out" to anyone in their chapter. There are also some regional differences reflected
in the responses. Those from the southern region of the country were more reticent to
"come out" and reported a higher incidence of negative responses than the other
regions.
The responses of fellow members to the revelation that
a member was lesbian, gay or bisexual varied widely, from immediate expulsion and physical
threats at the one extreme to complete acceptance at the other. In most cases, however,
the majority of the chapter had at least a somewhat supportive response, with only a few
members responding with rejection. In those instances in which the lesbigay member had
control over the circumstances, by voluntarily determining the time, manner and recipients
of the disclosure, the response was much more likely to be supportive than in those
instances in which the member's sexual orientation was discovered by others.
There is a noteworthy dichotomy between chapters'
responses to prospective members or pre-initiates who are perceived to be lesbigay and
their response to the revelation that an initiated member is lesbigay. With few
exceptions, chapters are very reluctant to offer a invitation of membership to a rushee
perceived to be lesbigay. On the other hand, while some initiated lesbigay members faced
expulsion or ostracism after their sexual orientation became known, more frequently
lesbigay members who "came out" did not face the rejection they had feared. This
is comparable to the experiences of lesbigays who have "come out" to their
families. Far more often than not, siblings strive to be understanding and supportive when
they learn that a brother or sister is lesbian or gay, even when the sibling harbors
homophobic attitudes and beliefs. It is not unusual for it to take a period of time for
siblings to process this cognitive dissonance, but in the long run brotherhood and
sisterhood tend to prevail over fear and prejudice.
Slowly, but surely the things are changing for the
better in terms of tolerance and acceptance of lesbigays within the Greek community. One
chapter president who was recently graduated from a large midwestern university, organized
a "coming out" party for himself during his final term, to which the entire
chapter was invited and most attended. Another chapter president who also recently
graduated from a large midwestern university, reported that he was reelected as president
for a second year shortly after "coming out" to the chapter.
Another respondent who was one of two openly gay
members of his chapter, submitted a provocative essay detailing some of the dilemmas with
which his chapter has had to confront. These included whether or not the gay members
should be permitted to invite male dates to the fraternity's date dances and whether the
chapter should make a conscious effort to conceal from others (such as rushees, alumni and
parents) the fact that the chapter had openly gay members. Factors that respondents
frequently indicated as detracting from their Greek experience were that social activities
were geared for heterosexual couples, that they felt intimidated by homophobic attitudes
and remarks, and that they felt it was difficult to get close to other members because
they felt a need to hide a significant part of their lives. Nonetheless, about 85%
reported that overall they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their
Greek experience.
Although the statistical results of the survey are
interesting, the most meaningful information can be found in the narratives that many
included to elaborate on their responses. Let me share excerpts from two that I believe
speak volumes about the gay Greek experience. The first is from a 1963 graduate of Brown
University, who served as president of his chapter:
"In considering the questions asked, it occurs to
me how very dramatically the world has changed in the 30+ years which separate me from my
undergraduate experience. "In my opinion, the fraternity system in the late '50's and
early '60's merely reflected the predominant social values of the times, it did not create
them. Homophobia was just another of the postwar social norms . . . My sexual repression
was firmly in place way before I hit the ivy covered walls, and in a sense fraternity
membership, not to mention achieving fraternity leadership, was elemental to the
expression of this repression. It represented simply another layer of the cloak which was
designed to hide my true identity.
"It took tremendous courage to be openly gay in
this era. There was little public tolerance for deviant behavior, and certainly in
university courses such as Sociology 201 (Nuts and Sluts), my recollection is that
homosexuality ran a distant third behind alcoholism and nymphomania in emphasis and
treatment.
"The environment didn't do a whole lot for the
self-esteem of your average emerging homosexual, and generations of psychotherapists have
grown rich treating the multiple personality disorders which resulted. But fraternity
membership was, on balance, a constructive force in my development. Being a member gave me
a social identity. It provided a "community" in which to develop leadership and
interpersonal skills . . .
"No, I haven't found it appropriate to publish a
newsletter announcing my true sexual orientation to these friends from the past, and as a
divorced father of two (pretty neat) kids, I guess the supposition is that I'm straight --
to the degree that anyone thinks about such things.
"I'm out to my kids, I'm out to my (current)
friends, and even out to a few of the people I went to high school with . . . It has been
an interesting journey of self-discovery and self-acceptance, and an incredibly enriching
one as well. My fraternity experience was simply a stop along the way."
The second excerpt, is from the survey of a fraternity
member was graduated thirty years later, in 1993, from the University of Wyoming. He
"came out" to the chapter during rush and thus never had to hide his sexual
orientation from his brothers:
"I have really enjoyed my experiences in my
fraternity. I have managed to change quite a few of my brother's ideas about gays. David
[name changed], who was our vice president when I was initiated and is now our president,
is a redneck from Nebraska. We have spent a lot of time together this semester. David and
I drove to our regional convention this past spring and really got to know each other
better. David recently admitted that he had quite a few reservations about my joining the
fraternity. He said he used to think of gays as being "sub-human." In high
school, David and his friends actually went into Omaha one weekend to "beat up
fags." They didn't find any gays to beat up, but he acknowledges that he was excited
about the prospect. Now when I see David on campus, he comes up and gives me a hug (a
fairly butch hug, but a hug nonetheless). We've discussed our romantic and sexual
problems. We occasionally work out together and we take a shower at the gym afterwards.
"This semester, Robert [name changed], the
homophobe [mentioned previously in his survey] rushed a friend who he knows from the
College Republicans group. This friend also writes a column for the campus paper. In this
column he has attacked gays three times in the past year. As the rush chairman, I have the
ultimate say in whether or not we extend a bid to prospective members. I could have kept
this guy from joining our fraternity. I expressed my concerns about him to a couple of men
in the fraternity. As a result, the president, treasurer, and sergeant-at-arms visited the
individual to explain that his homophobic beliefs could not enter into the fraternity.
They explained to him that his ideas were his own, but that they had no business in the
fraternity. This individual was initiated over a month ago, and I haven't had a single
problem with him. He actually goes out his way to come over and say hello when we see each
other on campus."
These two responses reflect our changing times.
Lesbigay students have always been in fraternities and sororities, although their identity
has almost always been hidden. "Don't ask, don't tell," the newly prescribed
modus operandi of the military has long been the norm in the Greek community when it comes
to homosexuality and bisexuality. In today's world, though, more lesbigay students on
campus, including those in fraternities and sororities, feel compelled to no longer hide
their true identities. By acknowledging the existence of these hidden members and
attempting to understand their experiences, Greek affairs professionals will be better
equipped to assist fraternities and sororities in dealing with the challenges created when
a traditionally heterosexist institution comes face-to-face with its non-heterosexual
members. Doug Case is the Coordinator of Residential Fraternity and Sorority Life at San
Diego State University and served as President of Association of Fraternity Advisors in
1991. He is a member of Kappa Sigma and serves on the International Fraternity's
Scholarship Commission. Doug is active in several gay and lesbian organizations and is an
honorary member of Delta Lambda Phi, a national fraternity for gay, bisexual and
progressive men.
For more information about his research, contact him at
Housing and Residential Life Office, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive,
Mail Code 1802, San Diego, CA 92182-1802; (619) 594-2939; e-mail: Doug.Case@sdsu.edu
Reprinted from Perspectives, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, April/May 1996 (a
publication of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, Inc.)
