Combating Homophobia and Heterosexism; Affirming Dignity and Diversity: Strategies that Work!

By Chuck Stewart, Ph.D.

To send me email, click here - ckstewar@sbcglogal.net.
To return to the main page, click here.

 

1997, Chapter 17 "Sexual orientation training in law enforcement agencies: A preliminary review of what works," in J. T. Sears & W. L. Williams, eds., Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work. New York: Columbia University Press.


Sexual orientation training within law enforcement is a fairly new endeavor and one that often causes great controversy. Virtually every law enforcement agency in the United States performs some type of social sensitivity education. These programs referred to as "cultural awareness," "diversity," "sensitivity" or "human relations" education or "training" are usually presented as a separate course or workshop. In the only national survey of police cultural awareness programs, the American Correctional Association and Police Executive Research Forum (ACA & PERF, 1992) found that most police training programs do not address the individual differences of minorities or the special needs of gays and lesbians. Many police cultural awareness trainings "come right off a training shelf, indicating that the material covered in the program must be broad enough to relate to a number of training audiences, and thus making the programs generic and not relevant to the participants" (St. George, 1991, p. 12). Furthermore there is great inconsistency with which agencies implement cultural awareness training. "The amount of training ranged from short roll-call training sessions to 16-hour plus blocks provided to agency employees" (ACA & PERF, 1992, p. 23), and the "materials used for training for police agencies varied greatly . . . [as well as] training approaches" (ACA & PERF, 1992, p. 24).

There is a strong belief that cultural awareness is essential for modern police agencies and that training is an important element for developing cultural awareness (ACA & PERF, p.7). But what are the characteristics of "effective" cultural awareness programs and the elements of "effective" cultural awareness training? Unfortunately, there are no published reports by any police agency or training institution on the assessment of program and/or training effectiveness. That is not to say that police researchers do not claim to know what makes for program and training effectiveness. Many authors have outlined elements of "effective" multicultural or sensitivity programs (ACA & PERF, 1992, p. 24; Cizon, 1970; Siegal & Senna, 1991). Even critics of sensitivity training programs often make their own suggestions on how to improve training effectiveness (St. George, 1991). However, none of these claims are substantiated by empirical research nor are the ethnographic methods used discussed.

Besides the general lack of research, there is much confusion as to what the goals of cultural awareness training programs for police should be. Confusion exists not only regarding the appropriate goals of such programs, but also what constitutes "cultural awareness" (Martin, 1993). For example, in California, the enabling legislation for police training on cultural awareness (SB 2680 and AB 401) states that the goal of cultural awareness training is to provide "adequate instruction on racial and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial and cultural groups . . .[and that] `cultural diversity' include, but are not limited to, gender and sexual orientation issues." As interpreted by The California Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), their Guidelines for Law Enforcement's Design of Cultural Awareness Training Programs (February, 1992, p. ii) states, "The purpose of cultural awareness training is to focus on principles that hold promise for moving California law enforcement to a higher level of understanding, acceptance, and appreciation for our diversity." A review of other state cultural awareness programs (ACA & PERF, 1992) reveals a similar wide-range of goals that are either ambiguous or unrealistic. Terms such as "heighten sensitivity of officers," "increase awareness," or "know how to treat each member of the community" are used to state the goals of the program. "Often the goals are broad, sociologically based, and unmeasureable" (St. George, 1991, p.8).

The question of "effectiveness" is a major problem for cultural awareness training programs in police agencies. Conservatives might classify cultural awareness training programs "effective" if the number of citizen complaints and lawsuits against police actions were reduced, whereas liberals might consider programs to be "effective" if the incidence of police brutality was reduced. But are either of these measures directly related to the "effectiveness" of the cultural awareness training program? Not necessarily. The reporting of hate crimes against gays and lesbians is a prime example where the explosion of reported incidents could be related to citizen knowledge of the law and police efforts to make reports, rather than a real increase in such crime. Previously, homophobic violence was seldom reported. Further clouding the issue of effectiveness are researchers who estimate that 90% of what is taught in the academy has no relationship to the actual demands of the job and that no single educational experience has a direct relationship to police performance (Shelden, 1982).

Police agencies have engaged in cultural "sensitivity training" for more than 20-years. Because of the delicate nature of the subject, the programs have rarely been scrutinized by trainers or supervisors (Stewart, 1993). Yet officers informally criticize the trainings and those who are responsible for implementing the programs often do not take the subject seriously. Why is there such a negative backlash and resistance from the officers? "For many officers, the `sensitivity' title of the training alone sends a message that they are viewed as insensitive. The notion that police are insensitive is repugnant to many officers who have been involved in pulling victims from car crashes, talking people out of suicide, and helping to deliver babies" (St. George, 1991, p. 8). Lee Brown (1973) identified four additional reasons why police cultural awareness training programs are often derided by officers "(1) many were hastily established because it was `fashionable' to have one; (2) many were created exclusively to `prevent riots'; (3) often the programs became the dumping grounds for misfit officers; and (4) because of the historical context in which they were formed (1960s), the programs were looked upon as programs geared specifically for Blacks" (p. 22). Thus, a continuing problem with cultural awareness training programs within police agencies is how they are perceived by the officers. Instead of viewing trainings as opportunities for officers to learn about different cultures and personal biases, they are often perceived to be forms of punishment imposed upon them through outside political pressures.

This psychological resistance by police officers to cultural awareness training reveals a basic conflict between the goals of policing and the goals of cultural awareness training. Police officers have historically been drawn from the minority immigrant groups being policed which has led to "problems of corruption, discrimination, political favoritism and personal prejudices" (Barlow, 1992, p. 7). The "professional model" was implemented and thought to overcome these problems by focusing on creating police officers who are legalistic, emotionally detached and apolitical (Goldstein, 1990). This is very different from the professional model exhibited by the professions of teaching, social work, and counseling, where the focus on has been on the "client." The police professional model attempted to remove emotions and personal prejudices from police officers (Walker, 1980; Richardson, 1980). This entailed removing any sense of loyalty to one's own social group or to the people in the community. A primary conflict with the establishment of cultural awareness training programs is that by design, the trainings are meant to make police officers aware of the needs of the many differing constituents in the community with which officers servein direct contrast to police professional detachment.

Another source of resistance to cultural awareness training emanates from the "police stereotype," which characterizes police as being hyper-masculine (Yarmey, 1990; Rokeach, Miller & Snyder, 1971), authoritative (Blach, 1972; Coleman & Gorman, 1982), prejudiced and bigoted (Bayley & Mendelsohn, 1968; Rafkey, 1973; Rafkey, 1979), needing to be in control (Gudjonsson & Adlam, 1983) and cynical in nature (Lester & Brink, 1985). Although these stereotypes have been shown to be false and the reality is that police reflect the values of the community in which they live (Adlam, 1982; Atwater, Bernhart, & Thompson, 1980; McNamara, 1967; Bent, 1974), these stereotypes are believed by the community and ascribed to by police recruits and even many police veterans. Cultural awareness training is the anathema of the police stereotype.

To summarize, gays and lesbians and the issues of sexual orientation have unique needs in relationship to police subculture. Sexual orientation training within law enforcement must address the issues of goal clarification, the police subcultural norms that disdain "sensitivity" training, conflict between professional detachment and "sensitivity" to community needs, and the hyper-masculine/authoritarian/prejudicial/bigoted/control/cynical police stereotype's influence on identity formation.

Theoretical Model

Relying on psycholinguist research on learning (e.g., Chomsky, 1957, 1965; Krashen, 1982; Smith, 1988; Vygotsky, 1986), the model used in my research assessing effectiveness of police sexual orientation training posits four elements of effective learning:


In this study, I solicited the participation of California police agencies. Seven agencies and academies from Northern, Central and Southern California participated. At each locale, I observed sexual orientation training classes and sometimes the entire cultural awareness program. A six-part assessment instrument composed of the (Modified) Attitude Toward Homosexuality Scale (MATHS) (Price, 1982; MacDonald, Jr., et al., 1973), Index of Homophobia (IH) (Hudson & Rickets, 1980), Homosexuality Knowledge Index (HKI) (Sears, 1991), Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, Emotional Identity (Stewart, 1995), 4-Item F Scale (Lane, 1955), and Police Behavioral Scenarios on Homosexuality (PBSH) (Stewart, 1995), was given to the participants before and after the training module. All total, 438 students were observed, 167 completed pre-/post-testing and 6 participated in interview. One- to two-hour interviews were conducted with participating students, instructors, program administrators, agency/academy administrators, and representatives of the local gay and lesbian community. Interviewees were asked questions about levels of homophobia within the police agency, appropriate behaviors between police and gay and lesbian workers and community contacts, and suggestions for improving the acceptance of gays and lesbians. All interviewees were also asked to completed the assessment instrument so as to measure the culture of the organization and community with respect to homophobia. Approximately half of the 50 non-student interviewees completed the assessment instrument. I also participated in agency Ride-Along within the local gay and lesbian sectors. Often riding with police officers while on duty for a number of hours allowed them to relax enough to really open up about the homophobia with their agency. The findings presented here are based on partial data collection and analysis. For more complete conclusions, see Stewart (1995).

Preliminary Findings

Sexual orientation training must be assessed within context of the environment in which it is conducted. The preliminary findings of this research vividly demonstrates the interplay of police culture, program structure, teaching methodologies, and course content

Police culture in California agencies are extremely heterosexist. Interviews revealed great disparity in most agencies between the perception held by high ranking administrators and the gay and lesbian officers concerning the agencies' acceptance of homosexuals and/or the discussion of homosexuality. Administrators usually claimed that homosexuality was "not an issue" and that officers were judged solely on merit, yet gay and lesbian officers were well aware how dangerous it was to be an open homosexual. Only in those agencies which made of point of publicly recognizing the achievements of the open gay and lesbian officers (such as award banquets, press releases) and which included daily conversations recognizing the personal relationships in which the gay and lesbian officers were engaged (such as "How is your wife or girlfriend" to the lesbian officers), was the cultural norm less heterosexist. On the MATH and IH, "sworn" heterosexual police personnel rated higher levels of homophobia than civilian or gay police personnel, and recruits rated even higher (see Table 1). Furthermore, empirical testing revealed that if an overall agency was gay-affirming then both administrators and their recruits would score more gay-positive than in a gay-negative environment and vice versa (see Table 1). This suggests that recruits reflect their academy administrators and administrators select students who reflect their own values. When respondents were asked to write statements of feelings and/or beliefs they had towards homosexuals or about homosexuality, 55-70% of recruits reported negative beliefs with 27-59% believing that homosexuals are "sick" and "unnatural and a sin." Police administrators were less anti-gay, with approximately 41% making negative statements of which only 27% reported that they believed homosexuality to be a sickness or sin. More importantly, almost one-fourth of police administrators believed that homosexuals are just like "regular" people and should have equal rights, compare to the only 15% of recruits who expressed this pro-right view.


Table 1

Comparison of Homophobia Levels for Law Enforcement Personnel

   MATH Scores  IH Scores  N
 Heterosexual Recruits (in gay-negative police environments)  53, 53, 55, 59  37, 36, 36, 44  34, 28, 28, 55
 Heterosexual Recruits (in gay-friendly environments)  78  61  6
 Homosexual Recruits (in gay-negative environments)  64  49  2
 Homosexual Recruits (in gay- friendly environments)  92, 87  94, 90  1, 1
 Heterosexual Administrators (in gay-negative police environments)  46  29  2
 Heterosexual Administrators (in gay-friendly environments)  89, 81  66, 67  1, 2
 Heterosexual Administrator and Instructor (with gay son)  95  99  1
 Homosexual Police Officers (including instructors of sexual orientation training)  92, 96, 92  91, 93, 90  4, 2, 2
 Heterosexual Community Members (either with gay children or helped developed sexual orientation training curriculum)  75, 89  69, 91  2, 1
 Homosexual Community Members (who were instructors or helped develop sexual orientation training curriculum)  89, 90, 95  93, 96, 98  3, 1, 4

Note: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive.

Most California law enforcement agencies and academies are still evolving their cultural awareness programs. Sexual orientation is highly controversial and most agencies feel ill-prepared to deal with the subject. Many programs simply structured sexual orientation as part of a laundry list of protected classes with no specific information or intervention attempted. One common approach was to bring in a panel of gays and lesbians for approximately two hours to share their personal experiences with students and to answer questions as they came upwhich they rarely did. This required very little preparation or understanding by the agency, was low cost, and content was haphazardly covered. Because of the lack of open gay or lesbian officers at most agencies, the panelists were primarily non-police community activists and were not well received. A few agencies attempted to convey information through direct teaching by a trained instructor or expert. Some used trained police officers while others used college academicsusually gay or lesbian themselves. The more structured trainings included lecture, class discussion, group and/or individual activities, handouts and sometimes video presentation. In all but one of the observed trainings, the students had no responsibility other than to sit in class and perhaps participate in discussion. One instructor did attempt to have students complete a written home assignment, but this was fought by the students and caused concern from the contracting agency. The open gay or lesbian trainers who were police officers, took an essentialist perspective claiming that their homosexuality was an in-born orientation of which they were not at "fault." Having gay and lesbian officers as instructors, along with an essentialist approach garnered the most respect from the students.

Recruits seem most interested in hearing about how gay persons came about recognizing their feelings and identity formationthey very much wanted to hear personal stories. The "causes" of homosexuality and the family response to having a homosexual child were also important questions for recruits. With police administrators, a much broader range of questions were asked, still the "causes" of homosexuality was the most common question. In every class observation, a significant core of self-identified Christian fundamentalists would make their negative views known. Particularly when evidence was presented showing that homosexuality is not a disease, very common and "natural," the fundamentalists would attempt to smear the evidence as being "tainted" and biased since the research was assumed to have been conducted exclusively by homosexuals. One instructor attempted to address this issue by bringing along books written by open heterosexual researchers and holding them up to the class when the "bias" research attacks started.

Summary of FindingsWhat Works!

Training on sexual orientation is but one strategy in the fight against homophobia and heterosexism. More than anything, this research revealed the deep interplay of police culture to effective training. To make a law enforcement agency less heterosexist and accepting of gays and lesbians, it is important to bring visibility to gay and lesbian officers and to validate their relationships. Sexual orientation issues must become part of the daily routine and conversation. Homosexual behaviors and relationships need to be shared in everyday conversation and around the "water cooler" on Monday mornings just as heterosexual ones are now shared. Official recognition of meritorious performance needs to include the sexual orientation of the individual. Special effort needs to be made to assist recruits away from their anti-gay feelings and beliefs towards greater tolerance and acceptance.

It is essential that law enforcement leaders model attitudes and behaviors that are non-homophobic and embracing of sexual diversity. Using open gay or lesbian police personnel or police personnel who have a gay or lesbian child on the training panel or as instructors provided the strongest role model for the students and was better accepted by program administrators. However, their essentialist-deficit perspective reinforced the myth that homosexuality is both rare and abnormal. Attempts by academic instructors to broaden student understanding of the social constructions of sexual, affectional and gender multi-dimensions seem to confuse more than obtain a reduction in homophobic feelings and heterosexist beliefs.

Course content needs to address the issues students want to know. Much of the recent research and literature on sexual orientation is based on advanced feminist theory and many of the concepts are foreign to all but the educated elite. Similarly, a deep analysis of the biological component of sexual orientation is possible only with persons familiar with genetics, testing theory and biological brain research. Instead, this research project's findings suggest that it is best to start with the student's own feelings and experiences. Homosexuality is stigmatized in our society and fear and negative stereotypes form a basis of common knowledge. The teacher needs to start at what is known and felt (both negative and frightening), then assist students to a greater understanding of the roots of homophobia and heterosexism. Although there are some similarities between recruits and administrators, each setting requires course content aimed at their specific needs. Effectiveness in training requires that a small core of information be presented in an open manner, allowing students to guide the direction in which the course content evolves. Christian fundamentalists may try to capture the training, therefore it is important for the panelists or instructors to be prepared to address and limit this issue. Instructors often limit religious objections by stating that religious beliefs will not be discussed and remind police students that they have a responsibility to uphold the lawand in California that includes the protection of gays and lesbians from discrimination and physical violence. The issue of "biased" research could be addressed through presentation of gay research that has been conducted by open heterosexuals (although gays and lesbians may be offended that they need "validation" from heterosexuals). Very little actual information seems to be absorbed by students during a short training, suggesting that the trainings should emphasis personal feelings and students' interface with their job.

An off-the-shelf "Homo 101" course has little relevance for police officers. A few of the observed instructors had created police scenarios in which sexual orientation had a potential impact on the situation. The students seemed to work well in small groups finding solutions to the problems. From these very real situations, basic questions about sexuality and sexual identity emerged.

The trainings are often perceived as a couple of hours students have to endure with no involvement or commitment. Having students engaged in activities that are related to police work brings an authenticity that hereto has been lacking. For example, having students develop a non-discrimination policy for their agency, or develop their own course on sexual orientation training, or write a procedural manual for field situations (such as investigating a gay-bashing, or Alcohol & Beverage Control violation) in which sexual orientation is an important element will improve the effectiveness of the training.

Closing Remarks

This article is a preliminary report on the first empirical and ethnographic research to be conducted on sexual orientation training in law enforcement. This is a complex phenomenon with the interplay of police subculture, gay and lesbian subculture, politics and education methodology. Because homosexuality is a "hidden knowledge," the antithesis of police subculture and known primarily by its negative stereotypes, the future of sexual orientation training in law enforcement is volatile. Hopefully, training programs will stop taking the easy way out by using guest speakers from the local gay and lesbian community service center and instead develop highly-structured, goal-oriented programs that include "effective" strategies (see, Stewart , 1995, for complete research on this topic). Sexual orientation training combined with strong administrative support, provide strategies that work towards overcoming homophobia and heterosexism within law enforcement agencies.

Notes:

American Correctional Association (ACA) & Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). (1992, September). Preliminary report on training in cultural difference for law enforcement / juvenile justice officials. Adlam, 1982

Atwater, E., Bernhart, B., & Thompson, S. (1980, January). The authoritarian cop: An outdated stereotype? Police Chief, 58-59.

Barlow, D.E. (1992, March). Cultural sensitivity training; Rediscovered. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Meetings, Pittsburgh.

Bent, A. (1974). The politics of law enforcement. Toronto: Lexington.

Blach, R. W. (1972). The police personality: Fact or fiction? Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 63, 106-19.
Brown, L. P. (1973). The death of police community relations. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Urban Affairs and Research.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Cizon, F.A., & Smith, W.H.T. (1970). Some guidelines for successful police-community relations training programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Coleman, A., & Gorman, L. (1982). Conservatism, dogmatism and authoritarianism in British police officers. Sociology, 16(1), 1.

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers.

Gudjonsson, G.H., & Adlam, K.R.C. (1983). Personality patterns of British police officers. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 507-12.

Hudson, W., & Ricketts, W. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357-372.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice of second language acquisition. Oxford, Eng.: Pergamon.

Lane, R. (1955). Four item F scale in "political personality and electoral choice." American Political Science Review, 49, 173-190.

Lester, D., & Brink, W.T. (1985) Police solidarity and tolerance for police misbehavior. Psychological Reports, 57, 326.

MacDonald, Jr., A.P., Huggins, J., Young, S., & Swanson, R.A. (1973). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Preservation of sex morality or the double standard? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 161.

Martin, S. (1993). The problem of multicultural education: Background, definitions and future agenda. Multicultural Education Journal, 11(1), 9-20.

McNamara, J. (1967). Uncertainties in police work. In D. Bordua (Ed.). The Police. New York: Wiley.

Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), California Commission of. (February, 1992). Guidelines for law enforcement's design of cultural awareness training programs . p. ii.

Price, J. (1982). High school students' attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of School Health, 52(8), 469-474.

Rafkey, D.M. (1973). Police race attitudes and labeling. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 65-86.

Rafkey, D.M. (1979). The cognitive gap between the police and the policed: An exploratory study in attitude organization. Law and Human Behavior, 1, 63-79.

Richardson, J. F. (1980). "Police in America: Functions and control." In Inciardi and Faupel, eds., History and crime: Implications for criminal justice police. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Rokeach, M., Miller, M.G., & Snyder, J.A. (1971). The value gap between police and policed. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 155-77.

Sears, J. (1992). "Educators, homosexuality, and homosexual students: Are personal feelings related to professional beliefs?" In Karen M. Harbeck, ed., Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula, pp. 29-80. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Shelden, R. (1982). Criminal justice in America: A sociological approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Shively, M.G., & De Cecco, J.P. (1993). Components of sexual identity. In Linda D. Garnets & Douglas C. Kimmel, eds., Psychological perspectives on lesbian & gay male experiences, pp. 80-88. New York: Columbia University Press.

Siegal, L.J., & Senna, J.J. (1991). Juvenile delinquency: Theory practice and law. St. Paul: West.

Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into education, New Hampshire: Heinemann, 54.

St. George, J. (1991, November 30). Sensitivity training needs rethinking. Law Enforcement News, 17, 347.

Stewart, C.K. (1993, October 4). POST cultural awareness survey. Paper presented at the Comparative and International Education Society, Los Angeles, CA.

Stewart, C.K. (1995). The efficacy of sexual orientation training in law enforcement agencies. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (translated and revised by A. Kozulin). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Walker, S. (1980). Popular justice: A history of American criminal justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yarmey, A. D. (1990). Understanding police and police work: Psychosocial issues. New York: New York University Press.