Heterosexism and Self-Disclosure in the Social Work Classroom
by Roy Cain

Traditional college education is considered an atmosphere stressing patriarchal values. The experiment used in the article included a survey questioning how students reacted when their professor came out as gay. Challenging attitudes is a g oal of social work educators because separating personal from political is seen as negative to social work professionals. In the exercise, the argument is that in academia, professors are expected to conform to a patri archy dictating heterosexual privilege. Heterosexual privilege indicates that professors who are homosexual are to keep quiet while heterosexuals are open to discuss their partners. This double standard is looked at in the article. By removing this double standard and talking about his partner, the professor is attempting to make college a learning experience for his students. Two statistics mentioned stated that 23% of students reported disclosure made them uncomfortable while 27% reported increased comf ort. Feeling uncomfortable in this situation is understandable because most academics do not cover homosexuality in depth. Stretching boundaries provides for increased exposure to diversity. Learning to work with diverse persons is essential in preparing students for the work. Conversely, a high percentage of students reported increased comfort after the professors sexual orientation revelation which indicates gay students in the class felt a better connection with the professor. While looking over the ar ticle, a synopsis would state that gay students lack role models. When gay professors are honest about their sexuality, this leads to increased learning, increasing exposure, and support for gay students.

Several major variables were included, one whi ch stated that by self-disclosing, the professor reduced the alienation gay students felt. This is an excellent goal because whenever a professor can make a student more comfortable, it is essential to accommodate the need as long as it does not inflict harm onto others. By making students aware of his homosexuality, the professors gay students can view him as a role model. Conversely, some heterosexual students felt uncomfortable because of low interaction with gay people. By increasing interaction wit h gays, the professor is doing the students a service by providing exposure to elements they will experience in the workplace. The relationship between the two variables is that by challenging the views of heterosexual students, this provides exposure to gay people which allows students to interact more positively towards gay students while allowing the disclosure to bring gay students closer to the professor by providing a positive role model.

The data presented came from comments made by the studen ts. One piece of data providing evidence of the above stated correlation says that heterosexual students felt uncomfortable due to the fact it was a "loaded question." On the contrary, homosexuality is part of a persons "being" and denying gays the same r ights as heterosexuals demonstrates the double standard held towards homosexuality. In the academic environment, this double standard is stressful for students who are coming out. By using disclosure, some students felt it "did influence my comfort level because I felt like less of a minority." Removing the stigma of being a minority makes students feel more accepted. The last piece of data presented involves students saying that "it was far easier to talk about issues in class without fear of criticism" indicates the students felt the classroom was an open forum. These three pieces of data interact with each other to form the final outcome -- increased tolerance and acceptance of gay students. When free interaction is used, values and morals can be challenged, leading to changes in attitudes which results in less alienation being felt by gay students.

Looking at the data, argument, and the method in which the research was administered, I can't conclude the researc h was valid because researcher biases is present. By revealing his homosexuality, the professor should have outside persons reviewing the reactions and how they affected students attitudes. The professor had a conflict of interest which means the result might be accurate but the bias injected into the process makes that assumption hard to validate. Unless the evaluator is unbiased, even though the research findings might be valid, the perceived conflict of interest makes the research less valid due to p ersonal "lenses" used to view results. Additionally, the results of the research are not reliable because of sample size. A classroom environment does not lead to a diverse enough population to properly gauge if results can be expended to encompass soci ety. By having a small sample, the researcher is not allowing for differing opinions and values to be represented. The subject of the class alone leads to the drawing of a certain type of student. College classrooms tend to be majority Caucasian which lea ds to a certain amount of racial bias being placed into the research. This instance of research does not include the wide array of people necessary to deem the results reliable.

While looking at the research, I was able to find one theory which revolv es around that fact that through exposure, students become educated and sensitized towards the needs of gay students and, therefore, become more open-minded which leads to a more comforting climate for gay students. The theory proceeds to indicate that students who are exposed to diversity are more apt to interact positively with gay students. Through exposure, the professor allows his students to ask questions and interact in a positive manner so that sexual orientation is not viewed as something whic h must not discussed in public. Sexuality is a major part of human interaction and how we identify ourselves. As a culture, America stresses the importance of family which causes a dilemma where gay people are expected to suppress their relationships. A d ouble-standard such as the one mentioned is unfair and the professor is correct in assuming that by sharing, he is increasing the open-mindedness of his students while showing that discussing ones partner is not taboo.

My personal reaction is that th e professor was brave for revealing his gay orientation since homosexuality is still viewed as unwelcome at some institutions because patriarchy still affects academia. In my early college years, I would have felt more comfortable had I known gay faculty . Being able to identify with a person in power is vital when molding students. Additionally, heterosexual students benefit from knowing a gay professor because gay-friendly students are more accepting due to their contact with gays. Establishing this ea rly contact is valuable towards reaching the goal of a fair system where each member is valued. People need contact with minority groups so minorities are not judged on bias and stereotyping.

Since enrolling in college, I have had contact with gay f aculty. Openly gay faculty are not a new phenomenon to which I have been exposed. I use gay faculty as role-models to get advise and assistance. However, in the research, there was incorporated bias. Having a gay person evaluating the data is a conflict of interest and a neutral person should have been involved. The professors opinions affected how the data was interpreted. Such a conflict of interest can't be overlooked because distorted the data interpretation which leads to unfounded conclusions. Usi ng this research as a starting point is an excellent idea but further research in a suitable setting using unbiased researchers is essential towards reaching irrefutable conclusions.

Cain, R. (1996). Heterosexism and self-disclosure in the social w ork classroom. Journal of Social Work Education, 32, (1), 65-76.