Anna Lisa Amodeo, Sabrina Antuoni, Concetta Esposito, Cecilia Montella, Daniela Scafaro, Claudio Cappotto
4. GUARDANDO AL FUTURO: IL PROGETTO XENIA
“XENIA: Higher Education Inclusiveness Index” è un progetto finanziato dal programma europeo Erasmus+ e in partenza nel mese di gennaio 2020, che vede il Centro di Ateneo SInAPSi capofila di un ampio e qualificato partenariato, tra cui figurano, in particolare, quattro università europee (Università di Napoli “Federico II”, Università di Dublino, Università di Barcellona, Hellenic Open University di Patrasso). L’obiettivo di XENIA è quello di promuovere l’inclusione delle minoranze sessuali e di genere all’interno dei contesti universitari europei. A tal fine, i partner coinvolti nel progetto si occuperanno, nei prossimi tre anni, di sviluppare e sperimentare, a livello europeo, un indice che consenta alle università di misurare e monitorare nel tempo il proprio stato di inclusione rispetto alle minoranze sessuali e di genere, armonizzando e valorizzando le politiche a sostegno di una cultura inclusiva di tutti gli attori coinvolti, a vario titolo, nei contesti di istruzione superiore. L’indice sarà costruito intorno a cinque principali categorie, che saranno esaminate attraverso un doppio livello di indagine: empirico (analisi oggettiva dei servizi offerti dall’ateneo e delle risorse già esistenti) e soggettivo (rilevazione delle percezioni degli attori coinvolti). Le categorie sono così suddivise:
a) Aspetti istituzionali, che fa riferimento a tutto ciò che è ‘istituzionalizzato’ dall’ateneo in materia di inclusione delle minoranze sessuali e di genere. Alcuni esempi riguardano la presenza di una commissione esclusivamente dedicata alle politiche di inclusione e di equità all’interno dell’ateneo o, ancora, la possibilità di intraprendere una carriera alias per chiunque abbia avviato un percorso di transizione di genere, che consiste nell’assegnazione di un nominativo diverso da quello anagrafico e corrispondente alla nuova identità in fase di acquisizione;
b) Policy e programmi, riguardante il numero e la tipologia di politiche e programmi inclusivi che sono attivi all’interno dell’ateneo, e l’impatto che essi hanno sul clima universitario. Tra le azioni è contemplato il riconoscimento e la garanzia, nello Statuto di ateneo, di uguale dignità e pari opportunità nell’ambito della comunità universitaria, l’assenza di ogni forma di discriminazione, diretta e indiretta, relativa al genere e all’orientamento sessuale, l’istituzione di una commissione e di una procedura operativa da adottare in risposta ad episodi di sessismo, omofobia e transfobia che si verificano negli spazi universitari;
c) Servizi di supporto, che si riferisce alla presenza e all’importanza percepita di servizi offerti dall’ateneo a supporto dell’inclusione delle minoranze sessuali e di genere. Esempi all’interno di questa categoria sono la presenza di un help-desk in caso di discriminazioni, abusi e soprusi di vario genere negli spazi universitari, la possibilità di accesso a toilette e spogliatoi gender-free;
d) Curricula, che si riferisce al livello di inclusività degli insegnamenti e delle attività educative comprese nell’offerta formativa dell’ateneo. Esempi sono la presenza di almeno un corso di studi sui temi connessi all’identità di genere e all’orientamento sessuale, oppure l’utilizzo consapevole di un linguaggio non sessista nei materiali didattici e nella quotidianità accademica;
e) Vita accademica, che comprende la molteplicità degli aspetti che si riferiscono all’esperienza di vita all’interno del contesto universitario, quali, ad esempio, l’offerta di corsi specifici rivolti a studenti e studentesse LGBT+, la formazione del personale docente e amministrativo sui temi connessi all’orientamento sessuale e all’identità di genere, l’organizzazione di eventi di informazione rispetto alle politiche inclusive dell’ateneo e di workshop esperienziali, la somministrazione di questionari periodici per la rilevazione del livello di soddisfazione di quanti studiano e lavorano all’interno dell’ateneo.
Attraverso domande formulate in modo chiaro ed analitico, l’indagine consentirà di esplicitare una serie di aspetti relativi all’esperienza universitaria di studenti e studentesse LGBT+, fornendo, in tal modo, indicazioni significative rispetto a quali elementi organizzativi e didattici sia necessario modificare o potenziare al fine di migliorare l’esperienza universitaria. Scopo dell’indice, infatti, non sarà semplicemente produrre una descrizione, per quanto precisa ed esaustiva, del funzionamento dell’ateneo, ma anche realizzare un effettivo cambiamento che investa gli aspetti culturali, organizzativi e pedagogici implicati nel processo di trasformazione inclusiva. La sperimentazione dell’indice, che avverrà a livello nazionale ed europeo grazie ai network dei partner coinvolti nel progetto, consentirà di sintetizzare le molteplici informazioni che riguardano lo stato di inclusione dell’ateneo nei confronti delle minoranze sessuali e di genere, favorendo l’appropriata adozione di misure volte ad incrementare il benessere organizzativo e la qualità delle relazioni nell’ateneo.
5. CONCLUSIONI
Le Università costituiscono le principali agenzie educative deputate alla promozione del benessere e allo sviluppo delle potenzialità individuali dei giovani adulti. Un ambiente universitario inclusivo, che incontra le esigenze del singolo e le implementa, che rispetta le differenze e le valorizza, fa sentire gli studenti e le studentesse al sicuro e riconosciute nei propri bisogni formativi ed emotivi (Davidson et al., 2009), favorendone il successo sia da un punto di vista accademico che personale. Risulta, pertanto, fondamentale che le Università sviluppino strumenti che consentano loro di comprendere se siano realmente inclusive o se esistano fenomeni di esclusione e diseguaglianza che spingano gruppi a rischio verso performance accademiche scarse, che possono culminare nel drop-out, o a sviluppare forme di disagio che possono impedire di vivere serenamente il percorso universitario e influire sul benessere generale.
In generale, i dati riportati nel presente contributo evidenziano che: a) gli studenti LGBT+ riportano esperienze negative vissute in ambito universitario a causa del loro orientamento sessuale o identità di genere; b) gli studenti non LGBT+ esprimono atteggiamenti moderatamente negativi verso l’atipicità dei ruoli di genere e l’omosessualità; 3) l’offerta di servizi, quali la possibilità di accesso a percorsi di consulenza psicologica e l’organizzazione di eventi di informazione e sensibilizzazione focalizzati sui temi dell’inclusione e delle differenze è percepita dagli studenti e dalle studentesse come migliorativa della condizione di benessere e di inclusione all’interno dell’ateneo. Da ciò si deduce che, attraverso l’implementazione di politiche di inclusione e buone pratiche di prevenzione e contrasto del pregiudizio legato allo stigma sessuale e di genere, le Università possono essere promotrici di processi di cambiamento sociale, ispirato ai principi di equità, democrazia e cittadinanza attiva.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
Achenbach T. M., Rescorla L. (2003) Manual for the ASEBA adult forms & profiles: For ages 18-59: Adult self-
report and adult behavior checklist, Burlington: ASEBA.
BrckaLorenz A., Garvey J. C., Hurtado S. S., Latopolski K. (2017) “High-impact practices and student–faculty interactions for gender-variant students”, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10, 4: 350-365.
Brown R. D., Clarke B., Gortmaker V., Robinson-Keilig R. (2004) “Assessing the campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students using a multiple perspectives approach”, Journal of College
Student Development, 45, 1: 8-26.
Ciocca G., Capuano N., Tuziak B., Mollaioli D., Limoncin E., Valsecchi D. et al. (2015) “Italian validation of homophobia scale (HS)”, Sexual Medicine, 3, 3: 213-218.
Davidson W. B., Beck H. P., Milligan M. (2009), “The college persistence questionnaire: Development and validation of an instrument that predicts student attrition”, Journal of College Student Development, 50, 4: 373-390.
Dunbar M. S., Sontag-Padilla L., Ramchand R., Seelam R., Stein B. D. (2017) “Mental health service utilization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning or queer college students”, Journal of Adolescent Health, 61, 3: 294-301.
Ellis S. J. (2009) “Diversity and inclusivity at university: A survey of the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) students in the UK”, Higher Education, 57, 6: 723-739.
Epstein S. (2003) “Sexualizing Governance and Medicalizing Identities: The Emergence of State-Centered LGBT Health Politics in the United States”, Sexualities, 6, 2: 131-171.
Evans N. J., Herriott T. K. (2004) “Freshmen impressions: How investigating the campus climate for LGBT students affected four freshmen students”, Journal of College Student Development, 45, 3: 316-332.
Evans R., Nagoshi J. L., Nagoshi C., Wheeler J., Henderson J. (2017) “Voices from the stories untold: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer college students' experiences with campus climate”, Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 29, 4: 426-444.
Garvey J. C., Rankin S. R. (2015) “The influence of campus experiences on the level of outness among trans- spectrum and queer-spectrum students”, Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 3: 374-393.
Garvey J. C., Sanders L. A., Flint M. A. (2017) “Generational perceptions of campus climate among LGBTQ undergraduates”, Journal of College Student Development, 58, 6: 795-817.
Garvey J. C., Taylor J. L., Rankin S. (2015) “An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ community college students”, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39, 6: 527-541.
Goldberg A. E., Beemyn G., Smith J. Z. (2019) “What is needed, what is valued: Trans students’ perspectives on trans-inclusive policies and practices in higher education”, Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 29, 1: 27-67.
Gortmaker V. J., Brown R. D. (2006) “Out of the college closet: Differences in perceptions and experiences among out and closeted lesbian and gay students”, College Student Journal, 40, 3: 606-620.
Hill D. B., Willoughby B. L. (2005) “The development and validation of the genderism and transphobia scale”, Sex
roles, 53, 7-8: 531-544.
Hong J. S., Woodford M. R., Long L. D., Renn K. A. (2016) “Ecological covariates of subtle and blatant heterosexist discrimination among LGBQ college students”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1: 117-131.
Katz J., Federici D., Ciovacco M., Cropsey A. (2016) “Effect of exposure to a safe zone symbol on perceptions of campus climate for sexual minority students”, Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 3: 367-373.
Lapinski J., Sexton P. (2014) “Still in the closet: the invisible minority in medical education”, BMC medical
education, 14, 1: 171-178.
Longerbeam S. D., Inkelas K. K., Johnson D. R., Lee Z. S. (2007), “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college student experiences: An exploratory study”, Journal of College Student Development, 48, 2: 215-230.
Mancini O. (2011) “Attrition risk and resilience among sexual minority college students”,Columbia Social Work Review, 2: 8-22.
Masina E., Grasso P., Russo M. R., Russo S. (2012) “Young adults training: experience of intervention- lessons with students of Psychology from the University" Sapienza" of Rome”, Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, 1: 260-283.
Msibi T., Jagessar V. (2015) “Restricted freedom: Negotiating same-sex identifications in the residential spaces of a South African university”, Higher Education Research & Development, 34, 4: 750-762. Norris A. L., McGuire J. K., Stolz C. (2018) “Direct and indirect experiences with heterosexism: How slurs
impact all students”, Applied Developmental Science, 22, 2: 154-167.
Rankin S. R. (2006) “LGBTQA students on campus: Is higher education making the grade?”, Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Issues in Education, 3, 2-3: 111-117.
Rankin S., Weber G., Blumenfeld W., Frazer S (2010) The state of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender people, Charlotte: Campus Pride.
Renn K.A. (2010) “LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field”, Educational Researcher, 39, 2: 132-141.
Roffee J. A., Waling A. (2016) “Rethinking microaggressions and anti-social behaviour against LGBTIQ+ youth”, Safer communities, 15, 4: 190-201.
Sanlo R. (2004) “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: Risk, resiliency, and retention”, Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6, 1: 97-110.
Seelman K. L., Woodford M. R., Nicolazzo Z. (2017) “Victimization and microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: Gender identity as a moderator of psychological distress”, Journal of Ethnic & Cultural
Diversity in Social Work, 26, 1-2: 112-125.
Sevecke J. R., Rhymer K. N., Almazan E. P., Jacob S. (2015) “Effects of interaction experiences and undergraduate coursework on attitudes toward gay and lesbian issues”, Journal of homosexuality, 62, 6: 821-840.
Sue D. W. (a cura di) (2010) Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Tetreault P. A., Fette R., Meidlinger P. C., Hope D. (2013) “Perceptions of campus climate by sexual minorities”,
Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 7: 947-964.
Thompson E. H., Pleck J. H. (1986) “The structure of male role norms”, American Behavioral Scientist, 29: 531-543.
Waldo C. (1998) “Out on campus: Sexual orientation and academic climate in a university context”,
American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 5: 745-774.
Waling A., Roffee J. A. (2017) “Knowing, performing and holding queerness: LGBTIQ+ student experiences in Australian tertiary education”, Sex Education, 17, 3: 302-318.
Woodford M. R., Howell M. L., Silverschanz P., Yu, L. (2012) “That's so gay!”: Examining the covariates of hearing this expression among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students”, Journal of American College
Health, 60, 6: 429-434.
Woodford M. R., Kulick A. (2015) “Academic and social integration on campus among sexual minority students: The impacts of psychological and experiential campus climate”, American Journal of
Community Psychology, 55, 1-2: 13-24.
Woodford M. R., Kulick A., Atteberry B. (2015) “Protective factors, campus climate, and health outcomes among sexual minority college students”, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8, 2: 73–87.
Woodford M. R., Kulick A., Sinco B. R., Hong J. S. (2014) “Contemporary heterosexism on campus and psychological distress among LGBQ students: The mediating role of self-acceptance”, American Journal
Yost M. R., Gilmore S. (2011), “Assessing LGBTQ campus climate and creating change”, Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 9: 1330-1354.
APPENDICE
Tab. 1: Articoli inclusi nella revisione della letteratura scientifica sul tema dell’inclusione delle minoranze sessuali nei contesti universitari
Year of
publication Authors Country Main Topic Participants Methodology
2004 Evans & Herriott Midwestern, US Perceptions about LGBT+ people and their experiences
4 first-year students Ethnographic study
Key Results Participants experienced both internal changes, evidenced by shifts in self-awareness, and external changes involving behavior.
2012 Woodford,
Silverschanz, Swank, Sherrer & Raiz
US Perceptions about LGBT+ people and their experiences 2.568 undergraduate and graduate students Web-based survey
Key Results Attitudes toward LGBT people were more affirming than non-affirming.
Understanding sexual orientation as biological and having LGB friends, LGB immediate family members, and transgender friends were also important, but to a lesser degree.
2015 Sevecke, Rhymer, Almazan, & Jacob,
Michigan, US Perceptions about LGBT+ people and their experiences
360 college students Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Key Results The more interaction undergraduate students have with gay and lesbian
people on campus, the more accepting their attitudes are regarding (1) same-sex, consensual sex, (2) same-sex relations between adults is not unnatural, (3) vote for a gay presidential candidate, (4) friends with a feminine man, (5) friends with a masculine woman, (6) knowledge of GL issues important for future career, and (7) comfortable with GL roommate.
Furthermore, the more undergraduate students are exposed to coursework addressing gay and lesbian issues, the more positive their attitudes are regarding the importance of knowledge of gay/lesbian issues for future career and comfort with a gay/lesbian roommate.
2015 Michigan, US Perceptions about
LGBT+ people and their experiences 326 students self- identified as sexual minorities Web-based survey Key Results Subtle/non-assaultive interpersonal heterosexist discrimination contributed to negative health
outcomes among sexual minority students. 2016 Katz, Federici, Ciovacco, & Cropsey Northeastern, US Perceptions about LGBT+ people and their experiences 265 undergraduate students
Paper and pencil questionnaire Key Results Students who viewed the Safe Zone symbol reported perceiving more positive characteristics than
students who did not. 2006 Gortmaker & Brown Midwestern, US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 80 LG students Web-based survey Key Results Out students perceived the climate more negatively than closeted students, whereas closeted
Year of
publication Authors Country Main Topic Participants Methodology
2009 Ellis UK Perceptions and
experiences of LGBT+ people
291 LGBT students Web-based survey Key Results Verbal harassment and anti-LGBT sentiments were prevalent. Fellow students were, in the main,
responsible for incidents of homophobia, both through explicit anti-LGBT sentiments and also through resistance to visibility and inclusiveness.
2012 Woodford,
Howell, Silverschanz, & Yu
Midwest, US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 114 self-identified GLB students Web-based survey
Key Results Participants’ social and physical well-being was negatively associated with hearing this phrase, specifically feeling isolated and experiencing physical health symptoms.
2013 Tetreault, Fette, Meidlinger, & Hope Midwestern, US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 77 LGBTQ-identified students Web-based survey
Key Results Perceptions of poorer campus climate were predicted by greater unfair treatment by instructors, more impact from anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) bias on friends’ and families’ emotional support, and having hidden one’s LGBT identity from other students.
2014 Woodford, Kulick, Sinco, & Hong US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people
417 college students Web-based survey Key Results Students with greater atypical gender expression experienced greater overall heterosexism and
victimization. Microaggressions, particularly environmental microaggressions, were more influential on overall heterosexism than blatant victimization.
Heterosexism and microaggressions were associated with self-acceptance and distress, whereas victimization did not. Self-acceptance mediated the path from discrimination to distress for both overall heterosexism and microaggressions
2015 Msibi & Jagessar KwaZulu- Natal province, South Africa Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 10 undergraduate students Face-to-face Interview
Key Results Participants recounted frequent incidents of homophobic episodes. 2015 Woodford &
Kulick
Midwest, US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 381 self-identified sexual minority students Web-based survey
Key Results Heterosexism on campus is associated with decreased academic and social integration among sexual minority college students. Perceptions of whether lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people could be open about their sexual identity was positively associated with acceptance on campus. Personal heterosexist harassment was positively associated with academic disengagement and negatively with GPA.
2015 Garvey & Rankin US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 2.384 undergraduate students self- identified as Trans- and queer-spectrum people Web-based survey
Year of
publication Authors Country Main Topic Participants Methodology
Key Results Trans-spectrum students reported more negative perceptions of campus climate, classroom climate, and curriculum inclusivity and higher use of campus resources. Higher levels of outness significantly related to poorer perceptions of campus responses and campus resources. 2015 Garvey, Taylor, & Rankin All 50 US states Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 102 undergraduate students Web-based survey Key Results Classroom climate was the strongest predictor of students’ overall campus climate.
2016 Hong,
Woodford, Long, & Renn
US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people Policies and programs 530 self-identified LGBQ college students from 37 states
Web-based survey
Key Results Ambient heterosexism was positively associated with students’ reporting of interpersonal microaggressions, avoidance behavior, and verbal threats. Students’ perceptions of support as LGBQ students buffered the effects of ambient heterosexism. Students who reported that their institution’s anti-discrimination policy included sexual orientation were less likely to experience verbal threats.
2016 Roffee & Waling
Australia Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people
16 participants Face-to-face Interview
Key Results Individuals within the LGBTIQ+ community also perpetrate microaggressions against other LGBTIQ+ people, including individuals with the same sexual orientation and gender identity as the victim. 2017 Waling &
Roffee
Australia Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people
16 participants Face-to-face Interview Key Results LGBTQ+ students experienced barred access to knowledge, hostility and dismissal by other LGBTQ+
students when they were either perceived as too queer, or not queer enough.
2017 Evans, Nagoshi, Nagoshi, Wheeler, & Henderson US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people 12 participants Face-to-face interviews
Key Results College student participants reported experiences of discrimination and isolation based on their LGBTQ identification. Discriminatory comments and social rejection were reported as coming primarily from peers. Furthermore, the most salient sources of discrimination discussed often came from within the LGBTQ community on campus, rather than from straight-identified peers.
2017 Seelman
Woodford, & Nicolazzo
Michigan, US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people compared with
497 college students Web-based survey
Year of
publication Authors Country Main Topic Participants Methodology
2018 Norris, McGuire, & Stolz
Western, US Perceptions about LGBT+ people and their experiences Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people compared with heterosexual or cisgender people 1.702 students Web-based survey
Key Results 52% of heterosexual students and 72% of sexual minority students reported hearing students make sexual orientation-based slurs sometimes or often. 19% of heterosexual students and 42% of sexual minority students heard faculty make such slurs at least rarely.
Slurs, hate speech, and a climate of intolerance impacts all students, regardless of whether they personally identify as a member of the group being stigmatized.
Sexual minority students were significantly more likely than their heterosexual peers to be bullied, mocked, and assaulted
1998 Waldo Midwestern, US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people compared with heterosexual or cisgender people 1.927 graduate and undergraduate students Web-based survey
Key Results LGB students were more likely than heterosexuals to perceive the campus as inhospitable to LGB people.
LGB students often experience the university in more negative ways than heterosexual students. 2004 Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson- Keilig Midwestern, US Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people compared with heterosexual or cisgender people 253 students Web-based survey
Key Results LGBT students perceived the campus climate more negatively, indicated they had more knowledge and interest in LGBT topics and participated more in LGBT-related activities than did general students, RAs, faculty, and student affairs staff members.
2007 Longerbeam,
Inkelas, Johnson, & Lee
Columbia Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people compared with heterosexual or cisgender people 23.910 college students Web-based survey
Year of
publication Authors Country Main Topic Participants Methodology
Key Results Heterosexual students were themost likely to report using cocurricular resources offered by their