Chuck Stewart, Ph.D.
To send me email, click here - ckstewar@sbcglogal.net.
To return to the main page, click here.
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH
DESCRIPTION, QUALITATIVE AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
Chapter 4 presents detailed descriptions and findings of the sexual orientation
training observed at different police training sites. Section 1 includes
qualitative observations and interviews used to assess sexual orientation
training effectiveness. Section 2 looks closely at the data obtained from
administering an assessment instrument (PERQ described in Chapters 2 and
3) and relates these findings with the previous data. Section 3 takes the
qualitative and instrumental empirical research and estimates the level
of homophobia within the police academy and/or agency. Hopefully, these
comprehensive write-ups will give the reader a sense of how sexual orientation
trainings were conducted and the cultures in which they are embedded. There
are important concepts to be learned from each of these observations.
.c2.Section 1 Qualitative and Non-Instrumental Empirical Research
This section documents the qualitative and non-instrumental portion of the
research. To observe cultural awareness sexual orientation training as a
singular event would not yield much information about its effectiveness
without also evaluating how this kind of training fits into the overall
police program. To that end, classroom observations, document review and
interviews with participants and persons involved with the training were
conducted. The primary purpose in conducting these interviews was to obtain
a sense of culture of the communities of persons surrounding the sexual
orientation training. These communities of persons included not only the
participants in the training, but also course instructors, program administrators,
other police personnel and the community the police serve.
Training Observations
Table 4.1 presents a summary of the nine observed sexual orientation trainings.
For comprehensive documentation of the training observations, see Appendix
C which includes an analysis of the level of student involvement. As each
site is discussed in this chapter, please refer back to Table 4.1 and Appendix
C.
Table 4.1 gives information on the total time
for sexual orientation training, and the kinds and numbers of students
attending. Each discrete activity is shown along with the amount of time
devoted to the activity. Also, an assessment of the level of student involvement
is indicated for each activity. These levels are discussed in Appendix
C, and correspond to:
Level 1 Lecture/video with almost no question
or student involvement.
Level 2 Lecture with some questions and answers
by students.
Level 3 Instructor-led class discussion or activity
with moderate student involvement.
Level 4 Individual or small group activity with
follow-up class discussion and much student involvement.
At the bottom of Table 4.1, a summary is made of the total time allotted and corresponding percentage at each level of student activity.
.c4.Table 4.1
Sexual Orientation Training Observation Summary
Activity, Time and Student Involvement
Time
Student
# Students |
Site #1
143 min.
in-service
17 |
Site #2 & 3
132 min.
recruits
43/39 |
Site #4
240 min.
recruits
30 |
Site #5
202 min.
recruits
|
| Video "Growing up Gay." 53 min. Level 1. |
Instructor- led discussion. 41 min. Level 2. |
Local gay history video. 23 min. Level 1. Introduction & goals lecture. 20 min. Level 1. | ||
| Personal stories from police personnel panel-lecture. 90 min. Level 1-2. |
Open discussionon homosexuality. 60 min. Level 2. |
"Stereotype" activity. 8 min. Level 3. Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture. 15 min. Level 1. | ||
| Religious lecture. 31 min. Level 1. |
"Self-Awareness" activity. 35 min. Level 3. Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture. 15 min. Level 1. | |||
| Personal story-lecture. 24 min. Level 1. Knowing someone gay activity. 2 min. Level 3. | ||||
| Gay politics news video with lecture and discussion. 24 min. Level 2. "Stereotype" activity. 25 min. Level 3. | ||||
| Video"Gay Cops" from 60 Minutes. 25 min. Level 1. Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture. 23 min. Level 1. | ||||
| Domestic violence and hate crime lecture. 5 min. Level 2. "Gay Lifestyle" activity. 13 min. Level 3. | ||||
| Video of "Harvey Milk." 90 min. Level 1. "Question Cards" activity. 4 min. Level 4. | ||||
| "Points-of-Contact" lecture. 40 min. Level 1. | ||||
| "Questions and Answers" activity. 30 min. Level 3. |
| Summary of Time Allocations for Different Levels of Student Involvement |
Level 1 |
101 min./ 71% |
30 min./ 23% |
167 min./ 70% 122 min./ 60% | |
Level 2 |
42 min./ 29% |
102 min./ 77% |
29 min./ 12% 0 | |
Level 3 |
0 |
0 |
44 min./ 18% 76 min./ 38% | |
Level 4 |
0 |
0 |
0 4 min./ 2% |
Note: For each training site, the sequence of teaching activities is presented by listing the type of activity, length of instruction and the level of student involvement. Levels correspond to: Level 1 lecture/video with almost no question or student involvementChapter 4 presents detailed descriptions and findings of the sexual orientation training observed at different police training sites. Section 1 includes qualitative observations and interviews used to assess sexual orientation training effectiveness. Section 2 looks closely at the data obtained from administering an assessment instrument (PERQ described in Chapters 2 and 3) and relates these findings with the previous data. Section 3 takes the qualitative and instrumental empirical research and estimates the level of homophobia within the police academy and/or agency. Hopefully, these comprehensive write-ups will give t eader a sense of how sexual orientation trainings were conducted and the cultures in which they are embedded. There are important concepts to be learned from each of these observations..c2.Section 1 Qualitative and Non-Instrumental Empirical ResearchThis section documents the qualitative and non-instrumental portion of the research. To observe cultural awareness sexual orientation training as a singular event would not yield much information about its effectiveness without also evaluating how this kind of training fits into the overall police program. To that end, classroom observations, document review and interviews with participants and persons involved with the training were conducted. The primary purpose in conducting these interviews was to obtain a sense of culture of the communities of persons surrounding the sexual orientation training. These communities of persons included not only the participants in the training, but also course instructors, program administrators, other police personnel and the community the police serve. Training ObservationsTable 4.1 presents a summary of the nine observed sexual orientation trainings. For comprehensive documentation of the training observations, see Appendix C which includes an analysis of the level of student involvement. As each site is discussed in this chapter, please refer back to Table 4.1 and Appendix C.Table 4.1 gives information on the total time for sexual orientation training, and the kinds and numbers of students attending. Each discrete activity is shown along with the amount of time devoted to the activity. Also, an assessment of the level of student involvement is indicated for each activity. These levels are discussed in Appendix C, and correspond to: Level 1 Lecture/video with almost no question or student involvement. Level 2 Lecture with some questions and answers by students. Level 3 Instructor-led class discussion or activity with moderate student involvement.Level 4 Individual or small group activity with follow-up class discussion a uch student involvement.At the bottom of Table 4.1, a summary is made of the total time allotted and corresponding percentage at each level of student activity..c4.Table 4.1Sexual Orientation Training Observation Summary Activity, Time and Student InvolvementTimeStudent # StudentsSite #1143 min.in-service17Site #2 & 3132 min.recruits43/39Site #4240 min.recruits30Site #5202 min.recruits45Video Growing up Gay.53 min. Level 1.Instructor- led discussion.41 min. Level 2.Local gay history video.23 min. Level 1.Introduction & goals lecture.20 min. Level 1.Personal stories from police personnel panel-lecture.90 min. Level 1-2.Open discussionon homosexuality.60 min. Level 2.Stereotype activity.8 min. Level 3.Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.15 min. Level 1.Religious lecture.31 min. Level 1.Self-Awareness activity.35 min. Level 3.Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.15 min. Level 1.Personal story-lecture.24 min. Level 1.Knowing someone gay activity.2 min. Level 3.Gay politics news video with lecture and discussion.24 min. Level 2.Stereotype activity.25 min. Level 3.VideoGay Cops from 60 Minutes.25 min. Level 1.Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.23 min. Level 1.Domestic violence and hate crime lecture.5 min. Level 2.Gay Lifestyle activity.13 min. Level 3.Video of Harvey Milk.90 min. Level 1.Question Cards activity.4 min. Level 4.Points-of-Contact lecture.40 min. Level 1.Questions and Answers activity.30 min. Level 3.Summary of Time Allocations for Different Levels of Student InvolvementLevel 1101 min./ 71%30 min./ 23%167 min./ 70%122 min./ 60%Level 242 min./ 29%102 min./ 77%29 min./ 12%0Level 30044 min./ 18%76 min./ 38%Level 40004 min./
2%Note: For each training site, the sequence of teaching activities is presented by listing the type of activity, length of instruction and the level of student involvement. Levels correspond to: Level 1 lecture/video with almost no question or student involvement Level 2 Lecture with some questions and answers asked by students; Level 3 Instructor-led class discussion or activity with moderate student involvement; and Level 4 individual or small group activity with follow-up class discussion and much student involvement.
Table 4.1 (cont.)
Sexual Orientation Training Observation Summary
Activity, Time and Student Involvement
Time
Student
# Students |
Site #6
110 min.
recruits
105 |
Site #7
193 min.
recruits
94 |
Site #8
211 min.
in-service
38 |
Site #9
223 min.
recruits
65 |
| Personal stories from community panel-lecture. 50 min.. Level 1. |
Introduction and "Stereotype" activity. 35 min. Level 3. |
Introduction and "Stereotype" activity. 40 min. Level 3. |
Introduction and share-lecture personal story. 10 min. Level 1. | |
| "Police Scenarios" activity. 40 min.. Level 3. |
"Homophobia" lecture. 13 min. Level 1. |
"Homophobia" lecture. 12 min. Level 1. |
Video"Gay
Cops" from 60-Minutes. 23 min. Level 1. | |
| "Questions and Answers" activity. 20 min.. Level 2. |
"Gay Lifestyle" activity. 8 min. Level 3. |
"Gay Lifestyle" activity. 2 min. Level 3. |
"Police Scenarios" of police harassment
activity. 30 min. Level 4. | |
| Scientific lecture on sexual orientation. 40 min. Level 1. |
"Self-Awareness" activity. 10 min. Level 4. |
"Question Card" activity. 5 min. Level 4. | ||
| Video"Project
10" teen suicide. 20 min. Level 1. |
"Question Card" activity. 2 min. Level 4. |
"Stereotype" activity. 30 min. Level 3. | ||
| "Famous Gays and Lesbians" activity. 15 min. Level 4. |
Video"Growing
Up Gay." 31 min. Level 1. |
Scientific lecture on sexual orientation. 15 min. Level 1. | ||
| "Hate Crime" lecture. 5 min. Level 1. |
Scientific lecture on sexual orientation. 32 min. Level 1. |
"Famous gays and lesbians" activity. 15 min. Level 4. | ||
| Police homophobia lecture/activity. 10 min. Level 3. |
"Famous Gays and Lesbians" activity. 15 min. Level 4. |
"Points-of-Contact" lecture/activity. 60 min. Level 2. | ||
| "Points-of-Contact" lecture/activity. 15 min. Level 2. |
"Hate Crimes" lecture. 5 min. Level 1. |
"Personal Contact" activity. 15 min. Level 4. | ||
| "Appropriate Police Behavior" activity. 15 min. Level 4. |
"Police Scenarios" of police harassment
activity. 30 min. Level 4. |
"Questions and Answers" activity.
15 min. Level 3. | ||
| Questions and Answers activity. 15 min. Level 3. |
"Points-of-Contact" lecture/activity. 30 min. Level 2. |
Closure. 5 min. Level 1. |
| Summary of Time Allocations for Different Levels of Student Involvement |
Level 1 |
50 min./ 46% |
83 min./ 43% |
85 min./ 40% |
53 min./ 24% |
Level 2 |
20 min./ 18% |
15 min./ 8% |
30 min./ 14% |
60 min./ 27% |
Level 3 |
40 min./ 36% |
63 min./ 33% |
39 min./ 18% |
45 min./ 20% |
Level 4 |
0 |
30 min./16% |
57 min./ 28% |
65 min./ 29% |
.c3.Site #1
Site #1 is a medium-sized city of 120,000 located in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Posted on the major roads entering the community are signs that state,
"Racism is not tolerated." Towards that commitment to overcome
racism, Site #1 police department initiated a program in 1991 to assess
the cultural awareness needs of the agency which resulted in a comprehensive
Cultural Awareness Training (CAT) program for all police personnel starting
in 1994. With 161 sworn officers and 124 civilian employees, the program
planned for small classes of 15-19 students to attend the 40 hour CAT. Holding
classes monthly, the department anticipated completing training within 24
months. Taking great pride in their program, they proposed to the City Council
a similar training program to be initiated for all city employees.
Gay and Lesbian Community:
The gay and lesbian community at Site #1 is small and revolves around a
few bars located in the old downtown. Bar owners and patrons report that
the overall harassment of gays and lesbians has decreased significantly
over the last ten years, particularly since the hiring of the new police
chief. No longer do police enter gay bars to stand and stare at the patrons
or randomly arrest them. Still, bar owners report continued low-level harassment
from the community including "verbal harassment 3 to 5 times a week,
being egged once every 6 weeks and being water pistoled by passing cars
a few times a year."
Site #1's gay and lesbian community is virtually unaware of the police except
for when there is an altercation. Although no official liaison group exists
between police and the gay community other than the broad based Human Rights
Commission, recurring problems with noise and public drunkenness at a particular
heterosexual bar located near homes of wealthy citizens and next to a lesbian
bar had resulted in a coalition of these homeowners and bar owners to form
to try and rid the community of this problem. The gay/lesbian bar owners
are vocally anti-drug, non-supportive of illegal behavior, welcome police
inspections, and have learned that police respond to requests for assistance
with haste and a smile. Non-gay police noted that they "wish the straight
bars were as cooperative and well behaved as the gay/lesbian bars."
Together, a mutually supportive relationship has developed. Of course, not
all police officers are perfect, and bar owners report the infrequent need
of going directly to the area police administrator to settle problems. Vice
enforcement, historically an area of conflict between police and the gay
community, is not a problem, since as a police administrator explained,
"Vice does not target homosexuals or street prostitution (unless a
complaint is filed)." Furthermore, the police's non-harassment and
professional support of the gay/lesbian community, aligned with the City's
adoption of anti-discrimination policies that include a domestic partnership
registration, has defused most gay/lesbian political organizing.
The gay and lesbian community is very unaware of the internal happenings
or policies of the police department. Although more than half of Site #1's
fifteen women police officers are open lesbians (as reported by some of
the open lesbian officers interviewed for the study), the community perceives
that there are only one or two on the force. Since there have been no public
statements, press releases, or community forums at which the gay/lesbian
community could officially recognize gay/lesbian police officers, the primary
source of information about the internal workings of the police is through
friendship networks with the open lesbian and closeted gay male officers.
It is through these networks that the community is aware that the are no
open gay male officers and as one bar owner reported, it would be "very
dangerous" for a gay male officer to come out. The community also learned
about previous harassment experienced by the lesbian officers, including
the current controversy regarding the heterosexual women personnel requesting
greater "privacy" be built into the bathroom renovations. Although
no "incidents" have occurred in the bathrooms, some heterosexual
women have stated that they resent sharing the bathrooms with lesbian officers.
The lack of official communication between the city, the police department
and the gay/lesbian community has weakened the communities' understanding
of the legal protections based on sexual orientation afforded them in Site
#1.
Police Subculture:
The police administration is strongly committed to organizational change
toward being more responsive to the entire spectrum of community needs.
The police chief is recognized, both in the community and in the agency,
as a leader in this quest and the best administrator Site #1 has had in
the past few years. Yet, some in the community see the chief as a political
opportunist since it is widely known that he already has applied to take
a new chief position at a much larger police agency. Also, some officers
feel that the agency is blinding itself with a self-serving attitude, a
belief that they are way ahead of most other police agencies and that they
are the most knowledgeable about policing.
The police subculture with respect to gays and lesbians is much more complex.
No citizen and/or internal police complaints or suits based on sexual orientation
discrimination have been filed against the police during the administration
of the current police chief. The number of open lesbian officers has increased.
Police personnel make an "active" recruitment effort by not discriminating
against gays and lesbians. Together, the acceptance of gays and lesbians
seems good, i.e., the level of homophobia in the agency seems low. However,
there seem to be unresolved issues that contribute to continued harassment
of the gay and lesbian officers. First, different administrators view sexual
orientation issues diametrically opposed to one another; some claim that
sexual orientation is a non-issue for police, while others claim that having
no open gay male officers indicates a significant problem. Still, other
administrators make both claims in the same conversation. Police administrators
in general give the impression of wanting sexual orientation to be a non-issue,
however, when questioned about the reasons for having no open gay male officers,
and when presented with the complaints and concerns expressed by the open
lesbian officers, they concede that homosexuality is still an important
issue for the agency. Second, the administration's belief they are taking
an "active" posture on gay and lesbian issues does not match the
"proactive" desires of many lesbian officers and gay/lesbian community
members. Even with these differences, administrators and gay/lesbian officers
agreed during interview that having open gay and lesbian officers is the
single most important component to improving the acceptance of gays and
lesbians in the police agency. Administrative support and cultural awareness
training specifically on sexual orientation issues were also considered
important, but not as significant as having open role models.
Students were asked their opinion about the level of acceptance for gays
and lesbians in the agency. Ten students out of a class of 17 responded
to this request. Ten (60%) respondents felt the agency was not homophobic.
As one student stated, "lesbians are out and seem to be more accepting,
but gay males are not. That probably has to do with the MACHO attitudes
of most males in police work." There was a dissenting voice, "[gays
and lesbians are] accepted but still some covert resistance with comments
made by administrators they need to go through the course first." It
is interesting that students hold this fairly schizophrenic attitude because
none reported witnessing a gay-bashing in the agency nor felt that gays
and lesbians were ridiculed. Of those students who made suggestions as to
how to improve the situation, all of them suggested more education on gay
and lesbian concerns.
Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Program administrators and training instructors were asked to state the
goals of the sexual orientation training program, list the content they
expected to present and explain the teaching methodologies they expected
to use. This information will be compared to actual observations to assess
compliance. Cultural awareness training is highly valued by the Site #1
police administration and community. The components of the program evolved
from the city's Human Rights Commission.
There are three sources defining the goals of the CA program. The Site
#1 Police DepartmentCultural Awareness Program, states that CA is:
cost efficient and consistent with the philosophy
of community-oriented policing and problem-oriented policing . . . intent
of the program is that behaviors both internal to the department and external
in the community will be modified . . . prevent discriminatory or prejudicial
behaviors . . . to include the idea that there is more than one way to
be a `good cop' . . . An approach that is highly effective is the sharing
of our human stories. (p.4).
The student manual given at the CA training, Site #1 Police DepartmentCultural
Awareness Training states that CA:
Promote higher level of understanding, acceptance,
and appreciation for diversity within the department and our community.
Provide information that will enhance employee safety and communication
skills when dealing with individuals from different cultures, races, ethnic
backgrounds and varying values. (p.3).
Finally, the interviews with community and police personnel revealed the
goals of CA are:
to "sensitize" the student to the issues
of cultural differences and similarities. "Sensitizing" on sexual
orientation includes the dimensions of making people relax enough about
the issues of sexual orientation such that they can discuss the issues
and reduce their stereotype beliefs. Police professed a desire to see behavioral
changes that would improve job performance but they did not want specific
behaviors mandated.
Merging these sources, one could conclude that the primary goal of Site
#1's CA training is to bring about changes in police behaviors toward greater
employee safety and increased effectiveness in communicating with a diverse
community. It is hoped that this will be achieved through higher levels
of understanding of social interactions that are developed through the sharing
of "our human stories." Although the police professed a desire
to see behavioral changes that would improve job performance, they did not
want specific behaviors mandated. To achieve these goals, instructors are
expected to act as role models and facilitators, and are not expected to
be trainers or experts on the subject. Likewise, panel members are expected
to share their life stories and act as role models.
Most respondents shared that the primary information about sexual orientation
to be transmitted during training is that gays and lesbians are no different
from society as a whole and share many common concerns with the general
population. Gay and lesbian respondents expanded upon this perspective and
said more detail information would also be provided, including bisexuality,
definition of terms, that sexual orientation is not a sexuality issue, and
that sexual orientation is inborn (essentialist perspective).
Researcher's Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
Site #1 Police Department was highly supportive of this study. Not only
did they provide access to observe the entire 40-hour CAT, allow pre-/post-testing
of students and the extensive interviewing of instructors, students, administrators
and the police chief, but they also assigned a police officer to take me
to meet with local gay and lesbian community leaders and bar owners. Overall,
twenty persons participated in the interview portion of the research including
10 gay/lesbian community members, 4 gay/lesbian officers and/or instructors,
3 non-gay officers and/or instructors and 3 police administrators (including
the police chief). Some students in the CAT course participated in the interviews.
I also participated in a couple of ride-alongs. During the week-long CAT,
I was requested to share about particular topics with which he was knowledgeable.
Site #1 takes great pride in their program and spends considerable resources
toward making the police department responsive to the needs of its diverse
community.
The PERQ was distributed to students on the first day of CAT and instructed
to complete it at home. Four days later at the conclusion of the sexual
orientation training, students were instructed to turn their answer sheets
over and take the PERQ a second time at home. All materials were retrieved
from the students the following day.
I had some impact on class proceedings. On several occasions during five
days of observations, I was called upon as a subject matter expert. Although
friendships were developed with a number of students, one student directly
told me (in very negative terms) that I should not be there taking notes
and the class would be better without my presence. During interviews, several
students expressed opinions that the PERQ opened their eyes and influenced
the questions they subsequently asked during the gay and lesbian panel.
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: CAT classes were scheduled 8:30 am to 5:00 pm,
Monday through Friday. Participants in the classes were a mix of both sworn
(including the Police Chief) officers and police civilian employees who
were released from their normal duties for the entire week at full pay.
Of the seventeen (17) persons attending, 5 were women and 12 were men. These
included three police officers, five new police officers, two police administrators,
one person from animal control, and six persons (4 women and 2 men) who
were civilian police employees. The class was informal with no one in uniform.
During the sexual orientation training on the fourth day of the class, two
high level administrators entered the classroom and stood at the backsomething
that had not happened during the rest of the week. The program structure
consisted of instructors presenting a theoretical model, having students
work through activities, and hear personal experiences shared by fellow
police personnel. Approximately two panels were presented each dayeach for
almost 2 1/2 hours. The panels were the primary source of information on
Hispanic/Latino, African-American, White European male, women, Asian-American,
lesbians and gay men, and Middle Eastern cultures. A seventy-three (73)
page Cultural Awareness Training Manual that included articles, worksheets
and evaluations were provided to each student.
Instructor(s): The CAT program developed a group of 24 trainers through
a Train-the-Trainer class taught some months earlier in Site #1 by the college
professor who helped create the program. One African-American male police
officer and a lesbian police officer were the trainers for the program observed
for this study. At subsequent classes, other sets of trainers would be used
with some overlap during the course of the program.
Setting: Classes were held in a conference room in the city's Convention
Center. The flat desks were arranged in a U-shape seating six persons to
a side. At the front of the room there were two flipchart stands with paper,
TV and dry marker board. Free pastries and other foods were made available
in the morning and after lunch.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
For the first hour of the 2 1/2 hour program, the video "Growing Up
Gay" produced by Brian McNaught was shown. This video demonstrates
the absurdity of the notion that gays and lesbians choose to be outcasts
from society and that being gay in our society is extremely difficult. During
the viewing, students sat passively watching. After a short break, a panel
of gay and lesbian employees from the police agency and gay and lesbian
community members shared their stories and answered questions. The panel
consisted of two lesbian officers, one male officer in uniform from a different
police agency, and two male community members. Initially, the panel members
followed a pre-set format of questions presented by the instructors. Primarily,
panel members were asked to share their coming-out stories and their relationships
with their families. This was very stilted with no student involvement.
About 30 minutes into the presentation, the lesbian instructor deviated
from the set questionswhich started a freer flow of interaction. Not until
42 minutes into the 90 minute panel was the first question fielded by a
student. For the remainder of the panel presentation, approximately 10 more
students asked questions. Students focused in asking questions of the police
officers on the panel and were interested in their experiences in the agency
and with their families. In particular, the male officer was asked why there
were no open gay male officers in this agency. Approximately five of the
questions were wrapped in anti-gay moral judgments such as, "Aren't
you afraid that if you have children they will turn out gay?" Overall,
the panel members shared information on coming out, being gay in a police
force, age of sexual identity, family dynamics, dealing with homophobia
and heterosexism, instance of gay-bashing, working with gay or lesbian officers,
being harassed simply for being the friend of a homosexual, the historical
harassment experienced by gays and lesbians from police, insensitivity shown
by minorities toward gays and lesbians, appropriate word usage, youth suicide
and the development of a strong support system. The instructors did not
seek closure at the end of training.
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Classroom observations support that "sharing of our human stories"
is indeed the primary instructional method used by Site #1's CAT as outlined
in their goals. The opening video used 1/3 of the training time and was
a weave of the speaker's (Brian McNaught) personal life, research on sexual
orientation and the experiences one faces growing up in a heterosexist society.
A panel composed of police personnel used the remaining allotted time. The
police panel members shared experiences as related to choosing and entering
the world of law enforcement, and contrasted those experiences with being
gay or lesbian. The panel members less well received were the two male civilian
members. Showing the video and panel presentation constituted 71% of the
instructional time. Only 29% of class time was used for limited student
involvement.
The content of the gay and lesbian panel emerged from the personal stories
related by panel members. As such, specific information that would enhance
a person's understanding and subsequent job performance became a hit or
miss proposition. Although the goals of the training did not want specific
behaviors mandated, without specific content goals it was impossible to
determine if the panels provided the needed information to effect the desired
behavioral changes.
Finally, the panel revealed a conflict between lesbian officers' impressions
of homophobia within Site #1's police agency. One officer claimed to have
little or no problems "no one challenges me . . . I was so concentrated
on being a police officer. Enough people are pro-me that they will cover
me." Another panelist claimed to have continual problems. As noted
in the interviews, harassment of lesbian officers has declined from a few
years ago, but all lesbian officers related that they still continue. Officers
who are more aggressive report less harassment. This stems from two sources:
(1) being aggressively open does reduce the amount of direct confrontation
from other persons, and (2) often tied to an aggressive stance is a psychological
denial of instances of harassment.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The two instructors were not trained teachers and unfortunately demonstrated
their inability to structure class discussions and activities during the
week. That is not to say that they were not well liked and held with high
professional esteem as police officers. They appeared to lack the skills
for effective classroom processes nor were they experts on the material
being presented. When showing a video or conducting an activity, they did
not prepare the students for the experience, but simply turned on the video
or read the directions for the activity. They were continually unable to
draw students into class discussion or relate what was shared to the theory
being explored. Even the simple task of dividing the class into smaller
groups became a confused situation. The instructors choose groups that were
either too large or not spatially arranged for engagement. Besides not preparing
students for an activity, the instructors did not attempt summary or closure
for any topic. Although the instructors were officially known as facilitators
and explained they were not teachers or subject matter experts, their classroom
function required them to be teachers and subject matter experts. A major
flaw in the program was not having a trained teacher structure the program
processes and not having subject matter experts available.
The police officers on the panel were better received by the students than
the gay community members. Particularly effective was having the one gay
male police officer in uniform while on the panel. He appeared to obtain
the greatest interest and respect from the students as evidenced by the
number of questions he received, plus the content of the questions centering
upon his police experiences. In contrast, a statement made by the elder
community member, "the only difference between a straight man and a
gay man is two drinks," caused considerable commotion among the students
and was remembered negatively the next day.
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
Classroom observations revealed that the module on sexual orientation solicited
the most reactions from studentsas measured by the number of questions emanating
from the students and the activity level during review of the panel. However,
interviews of the gay and lesbian panel members suggested the participation
level of this particular set of students was lower than previous classes.
This is interesting, because of all the panels presented during the week,
the gay and lesbian panel had the greatest student participation. One could
conclude that the entire week had been less involving for students than
previous CAT and that sexual orientation training in general is the most
involving for students.
A. What stood out in their minds? (Note: Ten students
of a class of 17 responded.)
Students were impressed most by viewing the video
"Growing Up Gay" (which was a last minute insertion). This, and
listening to the candid lives of the panelists were considered positive
experiences. The diversity within the gay and lesbian panel was also thought
to be important, although the "flippant" manner of one gay community
member was considered to be negative.
B. What did students want to know or were concerned
about? (Note: Eleven students of 17 responded.)
From classroom observations, students appeared
interested in the feelings the gay and lesbian officers of the panel had
when they were young. Because they perceived homosexuality to be rare,
uncommon, essential, homosexuals identified as the "other," and
confused about their gender, many questions regarding the "causes"
and "naturalness" of homosexuality were voiced by students. During
class, one self-identified Christian fundamentalist suggested that discussion
of the "other" side of the issues would be important (issues
of "biased" research and reparative therapy). The follow-up panel
discussion indicated religious condemnation of homosexuality was an important
issue for many students.
C. Student suggestions for improvements to the
training. (Note: Eight students of 17 responded.)
Students responses indicated a need for more information
(literature, video, etc.) and more time for discussion.
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The agency strongly supports CAT and is echoed by all administrators and
most officers and employees. The sexual orientation training seemed to involve
students more than the other sub-topics and was felt to be an important
contributor to the acceptances of gays and lesbians.
The stated goals for the training emphasized changing behaviors of officers
so as to enhance employee safety and communication when dealing with individuals
from different cultures. The program hoped that through police employees
sharing their personal stories fellow employees would become "sensitized"
to the issues of cultural differences without "mandating specific behaviors."
Unfortunately, the behaviors and professional skills needed by police officers
when dealing with gays and lesbians were never specified and was left to
emerge from the panel presentation and student questions. Students were
left confused and with many questions unanswered as evidenced during interview.
Furthermore, students were interested in the "causes" of homosexuality
and associated religious injunctionstopics on which none of the facilitators
or panel members could give expert information and which fell outside the
goals of the program.
Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Students were prepared for the panel through use of the video, "Growing
Up Gay." This opened many lines of questions that were presented to
the panel. However, because of the scripted manner of the panel, student
participation was limited. The instructors/facilitators were active officers
and should have been an appropriate role model for the students, but failed
to discuss their personal experiences where sexual orientation and policing
intersect. The panel also failed in most cases to be the appropriate role
model for the students. Only the openly gay and lesbian officers provided
students with some of the information they requested. Furthermore, since
none of the instructors or panel members were experts on sexual orientation,
valuable information was missing from the presentation. Students indicated
they wanted technical information on sexual orientation besides other kinds
of information. The instructors also failed to provide meaningful practice
for the student or attempt closure on what had been taught. Overall, this
class structure provided marginal amounts of information to students and
failed in many educational processes.
Site #2
Site #2 is one of the largest cities of Californias Central Valley. The
population of 400,000, is served by approximately 484 sworn officers of
which 42 are female and 442 are male officers. Most officers are trained
at the Site #2 Police Academy which is one of the basic recruit academies
associated with the local community college. The academy does accommodate
recruits and advance-officer training for other nearby police departments.
Cultural Awareness Training (CAT) started in 1988 when the department contacted
the instructors to develop a CAT program. Initially, 4 hours were devoted
to the training which grew to its current 30 hours of training6 hours more
than the POST mandate. The instructors of the training displayed great pride
in their overall program, yet felt inadequately prepared to train on sexual
orientation.
Gay and Lesbian Community:
As reported by the gay and lesbian bar owners, Site #2 gay and lesbian community
is extremely diverse; however it is relatively closeted. There is no specific
organization that acts as a liaison between the gay and lesbian community
and police. Most contact with the police is either from bar owners or local
AIDS organizations. Bar owners were split between appreciating the police
assistance or claiming that harassment by police officers continuesalthough
such police harassment has declined the past 10 years.
Police Subculture:
Neither of the heterosexual instructors nor heterosexual students knew of
gay-bashing in the police department. They felt that the acceptance of gays
and lesbians was mixed, with some officers accepting while many, if not
most, were somewhat negative toward gays and lesbians. Of the bar owners,
one reported of beatings that have occurred recently and that the police
did not act as "supportive as they should have." There are no
open gay or lesbian officers.
In the academy, one student interviewee said the acceptance of sexual orientation
issues ranged from "genuine interest to out and out outrage . . . [and]
it is youthful recruits who were closed-minded" having the most negative
attitudes. Continuing, she said that she too was very conservative when
she started police work, but learned "that many different kinds of
people are out there. I have had to learn to be more accepting." The
discussion during sexual orientation training was overtly negative with
less than 1/5 of the students showing non-judgmental interest in learning
more about the issue. The instructor reported that, "the academy has
a lot of resistance to sexual orientation training. Younger male cadets
are open about I dont like homos. Why do you have to study them. You are
trying to cram them down my throat. Verbal bashing is common through [the
use of] jokes."
Students were asked to assess the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the
academy. Fifteen students out of 43 responded to this question. Five students
reported that gays and lesbians were not accepted. Four students suggested
trying the improve the situation through education, e.g., "I would
continue to do these types of classes to help improve the situation."
Only two students of the class thought the academy was not homophobic. Also,
two students made negative comments including, "I feel that by improving
the situation with gays in our society more people should go to church and
believe in the bible to learn the fact that homosexuality is wrong."
Students were asked to write a statement about their feelings or beliefs
about homosexuals or homosexuality. From a class of 43 students, 37 responded
to this request. Negative statements were made by twenty-six (70% ) students.
Of those negative statements, half (15 students, 57%) made a moral or religious
condemnation of homosexuals and seven (27%) believed homosexuals to be psychologically
sick and/or confused about their gender. Only four (11%) students of the
class believed that gays and lesbians should have equal rights and/or are
"just like everyone else."
Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Training instructors were asked to state the goals of the sexual orientation
training program, list the content they expected to present and explain
the teaching methodologies they expected to use. This information will be
compared to actual observations to assess compliance. Both instructors emphasized
the goal of sexual orientation training is to assist students in becoming
aware of their feelings and attitudes and that "[you] cant change behavior
until they understand their beliefs." Once self-awareness is achieved,
then the training focuses on "changing behavior from intolerance and
misunderstanding to tolerance and respect." The instructors felt they
needed to create a positive learning environment and for them to be seen
as sources of informationthereby "facilitating them up the scaffold."
One instructor was "not sure sexual orientation training belongs with
cultural awareness training . . . for example, when gays talk about TB or
AIDS, the discussions are differentnot because they are different, but because
of the cultural milieu. The cultural mechanisms are differentlike in 1950
saying that black women are equal to white men."
The instructors felt it was important for students to know the incidence
of homosexuality in both the "general populations and in law enforcement,"
the definitions of sexual orientation and how the behaviors are related
to everyone, and that gay and lesbian relationships are "infinitely
more than sexual activity. If you back the sex out, what you have left is
a positive human interaction."
Being Ph.D. candidates in education, both instructors were well versed in
educational theory and utilized teaching methods based on "adult learning
models that are life-long." They based their teaching model on Vygotskys
"zone of proximal development," whereby students "funds of
knowledge" (Moll) are the basis for assisting students to greater levels
of understanding by "scaffolding" (Vygotsky). As one instructor
stated, "Knowledge through scaffolding is powerful."
Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
The instructors at Site #2 Police Academy were very supportive of the study.
Not only did they provide transportation during each of the three days of
the study, but they used 1 1/2 hours of the total CAT program to administer
the PERQ. The PERQ was distributed to students at the beginning of CAT.
They completed the test once, held onto the materials, and at the completion
of CAT, turned over their answer sheets and took the PERQ a second timeat
which point they turned in all materials. As such, these classes had one
of the highest rates of student participation in the study. After the class,
two students participated in the follow-up interviews. Recent changes in
program administration precluded interviewing any program administrators.
In the community, one gay male and one lesbian bar owners were interviewed.
Contacts with the local AIDS or college gay organizations resulted in no
volunteers for interviewing.
My presence produced a mix response. One student thanked me for conducting
the study with the hopes that "discrimination can be prevented."
Other students believed that, "by his comments in class and hypocritical
attitude he [Chuck Stewart] did more harm than good to his crusade and confirmed
our biases on gays," it "seems the guy is looking for a date,"
and they recommended to "take him out of the class." In contrast,
another student suggested bringing in another researcher who "was willing
to talk about his/her subject that the person is researching. He wasnt any
help." Thus, my attempt to limit my interaction with the class by only
responding as an subject-matter expert to questions asked by the instructor,
resulted students forming vastly different opinions of my attendance. One
student appreciated the PERQ while another student thought it was biased
and suggested that the class should "concentrate on the history of
homosexuality and sexual deviance then consider your sexuality. 1-800-need-help."
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Although this particular recruit class met for
the same 21 weeks as all other recruit classes, it was the first class to
experiment with different class hours. Students met between 10 am to 7 pm,
Monday through Friday. This later time schedule was thought to be more accommodating
to the students since they could take care of personal needs before class
time. The students enjoyed the later start time, but the later ending time
made the day seem extremely long. Of the forty-three (43) uniformed students,
7 were women and 36 were males. Most were hired recruits with approximately
3 or 4 in-service personnel and a few speculative students (i.e., persons
paying their own way through the academy and who have not been yet hired).
Only 18-days remained before this class graduated. During breaks, students
casually left and entered the classroom. Just before sitting, they were
expected to stand at attention. During break, they usually milled around.
Instructor(s): A husband and wife team were the instructors for most of
the cultural awareness training. During the sexual orientation training,
only the husband who is a 22-year veteran and county criminologist, conducted
the class (not in uniform).
Setting: Training took place in the Community College setting with students
coming from many surrounding agencies. The room was set with rows of desks
sitting 6-8 on one side and 2 or 3 on the other with an isle down off-set
center. At the front were a chalk board and TV along with a table on which
the instructor displayed books and other resources.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
The male instructor took an open-dialogue approach to conducting the sexual
orientation training. He opened the training by asking the class as a whole,
why sexual orientation was "such a volatile issue . . . [and] my daughter
has asked me why people make such a big deal out of homosexuality. What
am I going to say to her?" He solicited students to share their concerns
and wrote these topics on the board. Twenty-three students participated
in the activity and topics were developed on; fear of the unknown, lack
of education, distortion of facts, lack of familiarity, difficult to relate,
threat to (hetero)sexuality, out of norm, religious values, AIDS, repression
of sexual themes, stereotypes, shock value of sexual theme, negative peer
pressure, invisibility, and sexual identity. Most of these topics reflected
the negative attitudes held by students. The instructor called upon me as
a subject-matter expert on three occasions. After this 41 minute beginning,
the class resumed for another 91 minutes during which the instructor delved
deeper into the previously mentioned topics. Approximately 27 students asked
questions that primarily supported the beliefs that homosexuals are deviant,
diseased and sinful. Students and instructor were unconvinced by the "research"
and the instructor emphasized that people "select facts to fit their
paradigm." Procedures for handling domestic violence were given, students
were encouraged to "ask" gays and lesbians when in doubt about
their relationships, and to find out what "they" want. The instructor
closed the last 30 minutes of class with a lecture about "backing the
sex out of homosexuality, leaving you with people like everyone elsepeople
who love each other and face the same life problems." He also included
a long monologue (30 minutes) on Christian valuesstating that homosexuals
who accept Christian scripture injunctions against homosexuality will stay
celibate, and that Christians are to help those who hurt and are in need,
such as those with AIDS. "Respect comes from knowledge, and tolerance
comes from respect."
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
The instructors used an open investigative approach to the training. Opinions,
beliefs, attitudes and feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality were
solicited from students for approximately 77% of the time and used to encourage
self-awareness. The last 30 minutes of class (approximately 1/4 of the total
instructional time) was direct lecture aimed at "backing the sex out
of homosexuality" and used to demonstrate that gays and lesbians are
the same as heterosexuals. This monologue included overt references to Christianity.
The instructor stated, "One of the things that comes up, are people
with religious objections to sexual orientation training. Religious objections
are powerful things. Who we are is determined by religion and morals. .
. You are instructed to love all. We get into the religion because beliefs
are what this is about."
Although the instructor saw himself as a source of information to assist
students "up the scaffold" on sexual orientation information,
he admitted that he was a new student to the subject. During the training,
he was unable to answer student questions and indirectly dismissed the topic
when he stated that people "select facts to fit their paradigm."
Thus, one major goal of the training, to provide accurate information, was
not met.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The instructors were well received by students and thought to be "dynamic
speakers." As one student commented, "I admire [the instructors]
for their work because they are non-judgmental. I wish my parents were that
way."
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What stood out in their minds? (Note: 23 students
out of a class of 43 responded to this question.)
Thirteen respondents (56%) felt the class was
a positive experience toward overcoming stereotypes yet four (15%) of the
respondents believed the information was wrong, one-sided and distorted.
As one student stated, "The problems with religion and homosexuality
were never addressed. The suggestion of leaving the sex out of it and trying
to think of a gay couple as simply people who love each other was a good
one." A few students mentioned the instructor was "dynamic"
yet objected to being "pressured to accept this lifestyle."
B. What did students want to know or were concerned
with? (Note: 35 students out of a class of 43 responded to this question.)
Eighteen respondents (52%) were interested in
the psychology of gays and lesbians and "what makes them this way?"
Seven respondents (23%) were interested in gay politics and gay perspective,
particularly as to "why are so many people coming out of the wood
work?" Finally, four (12%) respondents made heterosexist statements,
such as "Why is there the need for gays and lesbians to try and force
their beliefs on us?"
C. Student suggestions for improvements to the
training. (Note: 24 students out of a class of 43 responded to this question.)
Twelve respondents (48%) mentioned that more time,
information, and additional time for questions/answers would improve the
training. The topics to be covered include: police issues, religion and
morality, "other" side of pro-gay rhetoric, family issues, genetics,
AIDS, and causes of homophobia.
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The instructors of CAT at Site #2 Police Academy are leaders on the subject
in California law enforcement, yet the CAT program at the academy seems
to be an isolated program that has little direct impact on the academy or
agency. Although the academy comes under community college anti-discrimination
rules, "Students are given a handbook, but many dont think they have
to follow the policies." There were no open gay or lesbian students,
although the instructor reported "one or two are recognizable during
CAT." During the interviewing process, the instructor replied in hushed
tones that "there is one staff member who is open to me, but not open
to everyone." The class seemed very homophobic with 70% of respondents
expressing negative beliefs and/or feelings about homosexuality. CAT seems
to be conducted in a vacuum with little integration with other programs
at the academy.
A concern expressed by the instructor was relinquishing CAT to other instructors.
During other sections of CAT, a different instructor conducted the class.
It was obvious this person was not a trained teacher and was unknowledgeable
about the materials. The primary instructor stated, "I am very concerned
about passing CAT onto others due to their lack of ability." Due to
direct familial experience with homosexuality (a gay brother dying of AIDS),
the alternate instructor could have had much to contribute to the sexual
orientation training.
Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
This program is based on current educational theory using self-awareness
activities to help students become aware of their beliefs, feelings and
knowledge about sexual orientation. The instructor attempted to "scaffold"
upon this awareness leading to a greater understanding of gays and lesbians.
The instructor appeared to lack the knowledge regarding sexual orientation
needed to bring students to a new level of understanding. Sexual orientation
training proved to be difficult for the instructor to adequately address
due to his lack of knowledge on the subject.
The instructor appeared to be a good role model for the tolerance and acceptance
of gays and lesbians even though he was a heterosexual male officer. For
many students, the instructor was the kind of person they wanted to be.
Thus, the effectiveness of the class stemmed from the strength and dynamics
of the instructors personality and his skill at classroom procedures, not
from his knowledge of sexual orientation. Although I was taken a back by
the overt Christian comments made by the instructor, for many students this
seemed to have an impactyet it covertly maintained gays and lesbians in
second-class status by reinforcing religious condemnations.
The instructor failed to provide specific information about appropriate
police behavior, distribute reference materials or hold students responsible
for participating in the class or for their own learning. Also, there was
no time or activity given to allow students to practice what they learned.
Finally, the closure attempted at the end of the training was mostly a religious
call for tolerance and not a summation of what was learned.
.c3.Site #3
The instructors who taught at Site #2 Police Academy also teach at many
other locations. One such location is Site #3, located on the south-east
side of Californias San Joaquin Valley. The community college-based academy
serves a farming community of 88,000. The local police department has 95
sworn officers, 10 of whom are women and 85 who are men. There are no open
gay or lesbian officers on the department.
The academy director attended POSTs T-of-T (Train-the-Trainers) and
was impressed by the instructors. He asked them to develop a CAT program
at his academy. In 1992, a 24 hour CAT program was initiated by the instructors.
I did not observe the class or conduct interviews. However, the instructor
claimed that the class was very similar in content and process as Site #2
Police Academy. He collected statements and questions from the students
besides administering the PERQ. The class contained 39 recruits of which
there were 5 women and 34 men.
Police Subculture:
The instructor reported that:
This is a very conservative group [academy class]
and more resistant to the total package of human relations training. They
were polarized on sexual orientation, and about 60% of them were decidedly
resistant. One person even said that they would flunk an officer out of
training if they discovered they were homosexual. That gave us an excellent
opportunity to discuss the ramifications of doing so. One person has a
brother who is gay and has active AIDS.
Students were asked to write statements regarding
their feelings and/or beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality at the
beginning of the training class. Out of a class of 39 students, 34 responded
to this question. Of all academies which completed this assignment, Site
#3 was the most negative. Twenty-six (75%) respondents made negative statements.
Of those making negative statements, eleven made religious or moral condemnations
of homosexuality"morally wrong, will cause the downfall of society,"
or "homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. Men who lay with men
and likewise women who lay with women shall not inherit the kingdom of god."
Similarly, six of the negative statements expressed the belief that gays
and lesbians should stay hidden"I believe that homosexuals are their
own person and should keep their sexual preferences silent." Finally,
six of the negative statements thought homosexuality to be a psychological
disorder"homosexuals are mentally ill"with gays and lesbians being
confused about their gender roles"male homosexuals are more feminine."
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What did students want to know or were concerned
with? (Note: 31 students from a class of 39 responded to this question.)
Site #3 students were the most polarized of all
surveyed academies regarding training on sexual orientation. Primarily,
twenty (64%) of them wanted technical (scientific) information about sexual
orientatione.g., "why are some people homosexual" and "do
they see the opposite sex as heterosexuals see the same sex?"almost
double the rate reported by the other academies. Yet, nine (28%) of the
respondents continued to make negative statements reinforcing heterosexist
beliefs and challenging the need for the course and the accuracy of the
information. Again, this was the highest response for all locations. Thus,
Site #3 students seemed very polarized by wanting technical information
on sexual orientation while 1/3 of the class made statements to the contrary"why
do they force their agenda on others that do not want or accept it?"
.c3.Site #4
Site #4 is located in a large metropolitan area of the San Francisco Bay
Area. Its population of 752,000 is served by approximately 1850 sworn officers.
Of these officers, approximately 230 are female and 1620 are male. Most
officers are trained at the Site #4 Police Academy, one of the independent
basic academies of the California police training system. Because of hiring
freezes by the police agency and budget constraints in the early 1990s,
the academy has opened its doors to other local agencies to provide training
for their new recruits. Cultural Awareness Training (CAT) has a long history
with the academy, and training on sexual orientation dates back to 1982.
Over the years, sexual orientation training has evolved from simply taking
recruits on field trips to the local gay community to walk around and visit
bars, to the more structured training that it currently conducts. In response
to Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) mandates for 24-hours of
CAT for each recruit, the academy has implemented a week-long series of
culture days including; "Gay Day," "African-American Day,"
"Hispanic Day," and "Asian Day." These culture awareness
days consume most of that days schedule (approximately 6 hours each). Everyone
interviewed at this site stated that they took great pride in the sexual
orientation training conducted by their Police Academy. They believed their
program to be the best, most comprehensive and in existence longer than
any such program.
Gay and Lesbian Community:
Being one of the larger and more politically active gay and lesbian communities
in the nation, it could best be described as diverse as the metropolitan
city where it resides. It is estimated that, "20% of the citys population
are gay or lesbian" (statement from video shown in class about the
history of the citys gay and lesbian community). The city has a long history
of gay activism that has influenced the development and deployment of its
police. In the past, police harassed gay bars and often over-reacted to
demonstrations and other political activism by the gay community. For the
past 15-years, the police continually showed great restraint during political
demonstrations, sometimes risking the safety of fellow officers. As one
instructor stated, "The gay and lesbian community is 99% supportive
of the police." This comment was echoed by bar owners and patrons.
The number one complaint from the gay community toward police was similar
to complaints from the city at-large"slow response time" indicating
that sexual orientation was rarely an issue.
There is no one gay community group that acts as a liaison with the police
department. Instead, as specific issues come to a head, the organizations
involved meet formally with the police department. It has been the gay police
officers organization that has significantly impacted the inclusion and
development of sexual orientation training. Through their efforts, training
has evolved into a more structured program and for more hours.
Police Subculture:
Harassment based on sexual orientation are virtually non-existent within
the police department. The training instructor reported that an internal
study of the department found approximately "75% of the women officers
are lesbians." Even with a significant number of the male officers
being gay, there have been no recent complaints filed against the department
by either a civilian or a police officer. An instructor reported that there
are some gay and lesbian officers who "have problems, but they are
not popular and not happy people. . . maybe marginal people."
The academy seemed equally supportive of gays, having one sergeant and one
staff officer who are openly gay to both staff and students. As one administrator
explained, "[gays and lesbians] are very accepted because they have
been part [of the department] for so long." In the class, two of the
women recruits were open lesbians. However, during the sexual orientation
trainings Self-Awareness Activity, approximately 2/3 of student responses
were extremely anti-gay. On the question of how the student would respond
to someone of the same sex making a pass at them, approximately five students
said they would physically "hit" the gay person. Many students
seemed surprised at the level of hatred expressed by so many of the recruits.
This activity revealed that even in cultures that are supportive of gays
and lesbians, in-coming recruits harbor many anti-gay feelings and beliefs.
Students were asked about the support gays and lesbians receive in the academy.
From a class of 30 recruits, only 7 students responded to this question.
Three students felt the academy was not homophobic whereas four witnessed
acts of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Finally, one student commented,
"I would say the acceptance of homosexuality is very narrow and limited
in my academy class."
Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Program administrators and training instructors were asked to state the
goals of the sexual orientation training program, list the content they
expected to present and explain the teaching methodologies they expected
to use. This information will be compared to actual observations to assess
compliance. The academy director believed that the goals for sexual orientation
training require more than just "sensitizing" students, but also
to provide specific techniques for dealing with different cultures. One
instructor emphasized that the academy is often a different environment
than on the job and frequently recruits complain that their Field Training
Officer (FTO) will make negative statements such as, "When you have
been on the job as long as I have, you can pick them out." Another
goal was for gays to be presented in a positive light since they historically
have been maligned by the media.
The instructor and program administrator believed that the content in sexual
orientation training included: sexual orientation as "part of a persons
being" and being gay or lesbian "does not affect job performance
or your rights as an officer or citizen"; history of gays in the U.S.A.
to show discrimination and empowerment; the 1974 APA declassification of
homosexuality as a mental illness; and examples where death occurred during
a police investigation in an otherwise insignificant event but that sexuality
became an issue.
One of the instructors wanted students to share their feelings and beliefs
during class. Much of the class was expected to revolved around lecture,
video presentation and asking questions.
Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
Site #4 Police Academy was initially very supportive of this study. They
were the first academy to respond to the solicitation for participation.
Because of delays with my ethics review committee, observation and testing
at the academy was postponed for 6 months and instead, became the last data
to be gathered. Days before arriving at the academy, I was informed that
testing of the recruits (PERQ materials had been sent to them two months
earlier) would not be allowed because the survey looked at attitude changessomething
the administrator claimed the program was not designed to accomplish. Upon
arrival, the academy director approved the testing but it then was impossible
to conduct a pre-test. Instead, the PERQ was distributed after the training
and students returned the materials the next day. Not only did this snafu
make pre-/post- analysis impossible, but administrators emphasized to the
students that the survey was voluntary and was to be completed on their
own time, stating that the "academy neither endorses nor opposes the
research or its findings." As a result, only 7 out of 30 students completed
the survey and no other data was made available to me. Interviewing also
became an ordeal. The academy director allocated a 1-hour interview into
his busy schedule. One developer of the sexual orientation training program
also scheduled time to be interviewed. However, the actual instructor of
the observed class was unavailable any time during the four days I was in
town, failed to keep a mutually agreed upon phone interview, and did not
return subsequent phone calls. I commenced to interview leaders of the gay
and lesbian community including bar owners. Overall, six persons participated
in the interviewacademy director, lesbian curriculum designer, two bar owners
(and informally with some patrons), and two leaders of the community. Unfortunately,
no student in the class volunteered to be interviewed.
My impact was minimal since I did not interact with any of the students
or make comments during the sexual orientation training. Furthermore, since
the PERQ was not administered until after the class, it had no impact on
class proceedings.
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Recruit training at the academy lasted 22 weeks,
meeting between the hours of 7:45 am to 4:45 pm, Monday through Friday.
Of the thirty (30) hired uniformed police recruits in the observed class,
7 were women and 23 were men. This was their sixth day in training. Break
times were informal, with students casually dismissed and casually returned.
A 15-minute line-up did occur at lunch with marching practice. One recruit
related that the goal of the academy was to help everyone pass, not to prove
a point of weeding people out. The following week, a class from the Sheriffs
Department was scheduled to join this class of police recruits.
Instructor(s): The instructor was one of several designers of the current
sexual orientation training. She had significant influence in its development,
is recognized as a leading authority on the training, and has testified
twice to Congress about the training. She is an active officer who is an
open lesbian.
Setting: The room setting included rows of flat desks facing the front,
isle down the middle with chalk board and TV on roll cart. The sexual orientation
training is dubbed "Gay Day," and was the first day of the recruits
CAT.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
The lesbian officer/instructor wrote her name and telephone number on the
chalk board during her introductory statement of program goals. Immediately,
she showed without comment the 23-minute video, "Looking at San Franciscos
Gay and Lesbian Community." Next, students were solicited to share
stereotypes (nouns and adjectives) used to describe gay men and lesbians
during the 8-minute Stereotype Activity. Approximately 16 students
participated sharing mostly negative stereotypes with much class laughing.
The instructor directed students to write down on a piece of paper how they
would react to 10 scenarios she read aloud as part of the 35-minute Self-Awareness
Activity. Once the writing was completed, she collected the papers and
randomly redistributed them back to the students. As she reread the questions,
she selected students to read aloud the papers in front of them. Approximately
83 student readings were obtain with mostly negative attitudes towards gays
and lesbiansincluding sanctioning physical harm toward a gay or lesbian
making a pass at a heterosexual person. Students showed surprise at the
results of the readings. After a 15-minute break, the instructor shared
her Personal Story. During this 24-minute period, she told of her
coming out, experiences with the police force, her relationship with her
family and issues surrounding her having a child. Only four students asked
question centering on child rearing. The instructor next weaved video highlights
from television news broadcasts covering gay and lesbian protest demonstrations
with a dialogue of her involvement as a police officer during the civil
strife. She discussed ACT-Up (she approved their achievements), Queer Nation
(she disapproved of their anarchists tactics), and the conflict she had
over performing her duty as a police officer to up-hold the law with "turning
in her brothers and sisters." Only a handful of students asked questions
during this 24 minute lecture although they seemed enraptured in hearing
about her "war" experiences. After a 1-hour lunch break, class
resumed with a showing of the 25-minute video, "Gay Cops" from
60 Minutes with Mike Wallace. No students asked questions and the
instructor closed the video by stating that gay cops are still fighting
for their rights. Immediately, this flowed into a 5-minute lecture on Domestic
Violence and Hate Crimes. The instructor stated that she believes that
domestic violence is increasing and that she now makes approximately one
call each day. During these calls, she emphasized that it is important to
not assume that the big person is the aggressor and that the officer must
ask the status of the relationship. To illustrate hate crimes, she told
a story about a recent physical attack she personally experienced while
off-duty and "luckily Im a cop with a gun and he went to jail."
Another 15-minute break led into the showing of the 90-minute video, "The
Times of Harvey Milk." This was shown without comment or class discussion.
The training ended without any attempt at closure.
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
The class emphasized the history and politics of the local gay community
as evidenced through the use of many video sources which took approximately
2 1/4 hours of the 4 hours of instruction time. The instructors shared personal
story and video on gay cops used another hour of instructional time. Student
self-awareness and awareness of class attitudes on homosexuality and/or
gays and lesbians were achieved through two activities using approximately
45 minutes of instruction time. Police techniques for use during domestic
violence and/or hate crime investigations took approximately 5 minutes of
instruction time. Thus, from this structure, it is evident that the training
gave mostly information on local gay politics and history, less but equivalent
time to the personal side of being a gay or lesbian cop and student awareness
of their attitudes and beliefs, and very little time to specific police
procedures. The training presented gays and lesbians in a positive light
and "sensitized" students that gays and lesbians are essentially
the same as heterosexuals, but failed to provide much concrete specific
techniques for dealing with gays and lesbians.
The primary method of instruction was lecture/video and constituted 70%
of class time. Approximately 30% of instruction time engaged student participation
and was provided through instructor-led activities. No attempt was made
to assess levels of student comprehension, bringing topics to closure, or
having students assume responsibility for participating and learning content.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The students accepted the instructor very well. As one respondent wrote,
"I was impressed with the instructors personal history. It brought
closer her humanity and naturalness." The instructor displayed skill
at class management, directing activities and making the environment safe
for students to participate. It was observed that the instructor mostly
made eye contact with the women in the class and paid significant attention
to the one or two lesbians in the class.
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What stood out in their minds? (Note: only
7 out of 30 students responded to this question.)
Four things stood out in the minds of the students:
group activities and videos (2 students); the clear, friendly instructor
(1 student); the many examples of police situations where there is a gay/lesbian
connection (1 student); and, the learning that gay stereotypes are not
true (1 student).
B . Student suggestions for improvements to the
training. (Note: only 5 out of 30 students responded to this question.)
Students suggested: more diverse speakers, role
playing, more films, and more gay and lesbian police officer experiences
demonstrating the improvement toward the acceptance of homosexual officers.
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The agency strongly supports CAT. Sexual orientation training represented
almost one-fifth of the entire CAT program and was well received by academy
administrators and the police department. This integrated approach reflected
the academy directors belief that sexual orientation training is part of
a multi-pronged approach which includes administrative support, having open
gay and lesbian officers and community involvement.
A wide range of goals were expressed for the training, reflecting political
and personal emphasis. Almost no time was given to specific police procedures
in situations containing a gay/lesbian aspect. Instead, these practices
were left to emerge from the sharing of the instructors personal storywhich
rarely happened.
Education Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory.)
Students were first prepared for the topic through use of the video on local
gay and lesbian history. The Stereotype activity exposed students
to the pervasive negative gay and lesbian stereotypes. This was further
expanded for the student through the Self-Awareness activity, revealing
the environment in which students work. Unfortunately, the instructor failed
to seize the opportunity and extend student awareness to the social processes
that keep gays and lesbians disenfranchised and how that impacts the work
of police. (These processes were discussed in the video, "Look at San
Franciscos Gay and Lesbian Community," but this was shown before students
went through the self-awareness activities. It would have been more effective
to reverse the order of the presentation.)
Using the last 90 minutes of class to show the video, "The Times of
Harvey Milk," was repetitious of the first video shown. Also, the instructor
seemed bored during the showing which indirectly conveyed the message that
it was not worth viewing.
The instructor, by being an open lesbian officer of many years experience
and of high repute, was a perfect role-model for the students. Through her
extensive use of story-telling about police work and how sexual orientation
issues often play an important part in some kinds of crimes and investigations,
she demonstrated that she is the kind of police officer recruits want to
become. This was excellent. It would have improved the class if the instructor
had included gay male officers and persons of color. The greatest weaknesses
in the class were: (1) the lack of relevant practice by students, (2) not
making students responsible for their own learningeither through relevant
assignments or testing, (3) no materials were handed out despite covering
immense quantities of information, (4) the instructor gave very limited
information on specific police behaviors and, (5) failed to summarize or
seek closure of topics.
.c3.Site #5
The Site #5 is one of the largest police departments in Southern California
serving a city of almost 4 million residents with approximately 7,780 sworn
officers. Currently, there are approximately 1,230 female and 6,550 male
officers on staff of which there are 9 open gay and lesbian officers. The
police academy is not associated with a community college and is one of
the few self-contained police academies in the state. CAT has a long history
with the academy and sexual orientation training dates back to the late
1980s. In 1992, because of changes in state law requiring sexual orientation
as one of the issues CAT was to include, the academy expanded the existing
training from 2 hours to 3 1/2 hours. To accommodate the new training format,
the community gay and lesbian police liaison organization created a 175-page
curriculum and teaching package. Both the gay and lesbian police organization
and the police academy express great pride in such a comprehensive curriculum
and training program and believe their effort to be the best in the nation.
Gay and Lesbian Community:
The gay and lesbian community is one of the largest and most politically
powerful gay and lesbian communities in the world. It is richly diverse
and trying to characterize the dynamics of the community in a few short
words is impossible. The first public gay protest march anywhere in the
U.S. was conducted here in 1967. The subsequent relationship between police
and the gay community has been tumultuous. Twenty-five years of conflict
between police and the gay community including numerous lawsuits, complaints,
action committees and the formation of liaison organizations has significantly
changed police practices and impacted state-wide CAT as mandated through
POST.
Bar owners and political leaders of the gay community report that relations
with police have improved significantly over the past 10 years. Police harassment
of bar owners and businesses catering to homosexuals has virtually ceased.
Misconduct by a few officers still continues, but these are considered to
be singular events more related to management problems of a very large bureaucracy
and not part of particular patterns.
Political leaders and liaison gay organizations are very aware of internal
police functioning. The community at-large, like most communities, is basically
ignorant of police policy. However, they believe the agency as still being
a dangerous place to be openly gay or lesbian.
Police Subculture:
The low number of open officers is testament to the adverse conditions that
still prevail in the agency. As reported by one lesbian instructor, lesbian
officers are "more accepted because of the acceptance of masculinity
which the stereotype of lesbian officers is hyper-masculine. The gay male
assumption is feminine, thus gay male officers are assumed to be unable
to perform their job." One 10-year gay male police veteran was "impressed
by the women who engage in the most difficult male work yet have long hair
and wear lipstick" and that anyone who acted feminine or perceived
to be feminine had the most problems being accepted by the other officers.
This officer also believed that gay male officers "need to be on the
job a lot longer and be good officers . . . [and] not be feminine acting."
Discussion of homosexuality in the agency was limited and an instructor
reported that it appeared to act as a deterrent by "attempting to control
behavior."
There seemed to be a difference in the levels of acceptance of gay and lesbian
officers by the police agency. In upper management, there seemed to be greater
acceptance. A gay male instructor believed the middle management level (Sgt.,
Lt., Watch Commanders at the division level) is "where the breakdown
occurs" and this affects acceptance by the patrol officer. Often middle
managers would not tell "officers (who use negative terms) that it
is unacceptable." The problem between older and first-line supervisors
(middle managers) has been described as an "inversion layer" where
police subculture is thickest. Many of the respondents indicated that significant
change toward creating a gay-friendly environment will not occur until "some
of the managers get out there to see the problems."
A 10-year open gay police officer reported:
It used to be that when you got on the job, the
FTO [field training officer] would say forget the academy bullshit, now
you will learn what is real police work. Now I dont hear this. I believe
that police work is becoming more technical, that academy work is more
valued. 10-years ago, officers would say that we really beat niggers, etc.,
but now we dont. If the old boy ways are kicked out, you are left with
what is taught in the academy.
Often, when a gay or lesbian officer transfers to a new division, the "division
must be prepared before the employee arrives. We should not have to prep
a division before any employee arrives."
The agency has a strict non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, the history of the agency continues to influence the policys
impact. The previous chief issued a non-discrimination memo and stated numerous
times that "discrimination against gays and lesbians will not be tolerated,"
but this was countered by other statements by the chief that encouraged
gay stereotyping.
In the academy, gays and lesbians are becoming better accepted as evidenced
by the increase in the number of open gay and/or lesbian recruits. When
students in the observed class were asked to write statements about the
feelings or beliefs about homosexuality or homosexuals, 29 out of 45 responded
and sixteen (55%) wrote negative comments. Of these negative statements,
five were heterosexist statements such as "this is a straight society,
therefore, you should have to play by the straight rules." Another
three of these negative statements portrayed homosexuality as a disease
and reinforced gay stereotypes "gays get upset easily and believe that
they are abnormal." Eight (26%) of the total statements were positive
and emphasized that "gays and lesbians are as equal as any other person."
The sexual orientation class was quiet and not combative with the instructors.
Although negative stereotypes were held by a majority of the students, student
conduct toward the instructors was respectful.
Administrations support for sexual orientation training was evidenced when
trainers were instrumental in removal of one recruit from the sexual orientation
training because of their overt homophobic attitudes displayed in class.
However, no recruit has ever been dismissed from the academy due to overt
homophobia.
Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Training instructors were asked to state the goals of the sexual orientation
training program, list the content they expected to present and explain
the teaching methodologies they expected to use. This information will be
compared to actual observations to assess compliance. Most respondents wanted
accurate information about sexual orientation designed to breakdown stereotypes
presented in a safe environment as their primary goal. The hope was that
students would become "sensitized" to the issues. Respondents
also felt that it was important for students to meet open gay and lesbian
officers and to learn specific skills needed to interact safely and with
respect.
All respondents wanted course content to attack anti-gay stereotypes specifically
to show that gays and lesbians are normal and not "sick," gay
men are not pedophiles, that there are no physiological differences between
gays and non-gays, and that gays do not recruit. All but the gay male sergeant
expressed an essentialist perspective and intended to teach that homosexuality
is "born" and not a "preference." The gay male sergeants
position:
I have probably taught the course 100 times. Many
gays and lesbians would like to present it as factSimon Levy, Kinseyand
this could be a double-edged sword . . . that science could be used against
us. I have had many students challenge this, they think it is biased. My
personal feeling that there is a strong bio/genetic link and a social construction.
It is inappropriate to spend 4 hours talking research with beat-officers.
Content on gay history and culture emphasizing that the "gay agendas"
big secret is simply a call for equal rights was also mentioned. Finally,
the misconception of AIDS being a gay disease was considered important for
students to know. Only one respondent mentioned the need for information
about the impact homophobia has on individuals and institutions.
The respondents intended sexual orientation training to include lecture,
group discussion, questions and answers, some audio-visual including blackboard
use and video presentation, and prepared charts or overhead transparency.
All respondents mentioned how important it is for the classroom atmosphere
be relaxed and conducive for sharing. This was primarily to be achieved
through the use of humor and a buddy system of multiple instructors sharing
their personal stories relating the diversity within the gay and lesbian
community. Only the non-police gay instructor made the point that "I
refuse to accept or tolerate predatory behavior. I dont think it helps us,
not to answer challenge, e.g., someone will challenge our statistics or
be unable to accept my perspective as real and valid such as the way I have
said. I never accept or back down when someone challenges me."
Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
This academy proved to be the most difficult to work with. The gay and lesbian
community liaison organization and the training instructors welcomed me
and provided great assistance during interviews. The greatest difficulty
was obtaining approval to administer the PERQ. When the academy reviewed
the PERQ, the staff psychologist said that it was inappropriate to give
the questionnaire to recruits because "it will do them irreparable
harm" and this caused them to block all access to the academy. In discussion,
it seemed that Part 4 of the PERQ caused the most concern and they objected
highly to students being asked about their current and future sexual and
gender identities. Ultimately, due to my persistence and other illusive
factors, I was allowed to observe one class with the stipulation that no
student be interviewed or talked to, and the PERQ was not to be administered.
Course evaluations and other documents were also denied to me. One class
activity had students write down questions they had regarding homosexuality
or about the instructors themselves. These were collected and answered later
in the class. Not only were these written questions from the observed class
saved, but the instructors had saved hundreds of written questions from
previous classeswhich were provided to me for analysis.
My presence during the sexual orientation training was minimal since I did
not make any comments during class nor interact with any students. The PERQ
was not administered and thus did not sensitize students to the training.
A total of seven persons were interviewed (3 women, 4 men)all of them current
or past sexual orientation training instructors at the academy. Two of the
interviewees were civilian trainers who had never been police officers.
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Students attended classes from 8:00 am to 5:00
pm, Monday through Friday. Police training lasts 28 weeks. Break times were
informal with students casually entering and exiting the classroom. The
class consisted of 45 uniformed recruits of which 5 were women and 40 were
males. All recruits were one week away from graduation. Sexual orientation
training is conducted as a separate self-contained module and counts toward
the CAT requirements. During the training, two police administrators stood
quietly at the side of the room.
Instructor(s): Open gay or lesbian officers wanting to participate in sexual
orientation training must first observe a class. If still interested, they
are invited to "share their story"how they came to realize they
were homosexual, their coming to grips with that reality, forming their
identity, family and interpersonal relations and how this is related to
becoming a police officer. After repeated experiences of participating at
this stage, they may evolve to a more active level of participation as an
instructor.
Setting: Classes were held at the academy in one of the classrooms designed
to accommodate not more than 50 students. Students were seated at individual
desks in rows facing the front. The room contained a chalk board and TV.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
Before the team of co-presenters entered the classroom, the students were
instructed by the commanding officer not to ask questions about religion
or politics during the training. When the instructors arrived, the lesbian
instructor introduced the training team, gave her professional credentials
and stated the program goalsincluding stating that they were not there to
"change anyone minds or beliefs." After the 15-minute Introduction
a gay male officer shared his life story including the realization that
he was gay even though he was in a heterosexual marriage with children.
No students asked any questions during the 15-minute presentation. Next,
a lesbian officer told her story for another 15-minute Sharing Stories.
She shared her experiences and emotional conflicts surrounding being a closeted
lesbian officer. At the conclusion of this sharing, the instructor polled
the class about how many of them Knew Someone Gay. Approximately
25 students raised their hands. This immediately flowed into the Stereotype
Activity. Here, the instructor asked students to share their knowledge
concerning gay and lesbian stereotypes (occupations and physical characteristics).
These mostly negative comments were written on the chalk board. Approximately
43 students participated with much laughter during this 25-minute activity.
After a 10-minute break, a heterosexual male staff officer share his 23-minute
story about his son recently coming out gay. He explained how he and his
wife were initially in denial about their sons homosexuality and would pray,
"Please God, just make him bisexual." This led to their participation
in PFLAG and sense of regret for all the anti-gay jokes he told over the
years. Students seemed attentive during the stories, but still did not ask
any questions. The instructor then led the class through a 13-minute
Gay Lifestyle Activity. A heterosexual student was asked to share how
he conducted his daily routine, e.g., sleeping takes 8 hours. This was presented
in chart form on the chalk board. Next, one of the lesbian officers shared
her daily routine. The instructor noted that the routines were virtually
identical except for the sexual partners. No questions were asked by students,
but much laughter ensued when it was evident that neither the heterosexual
student or lesbian instructor engaged in much sex. At this point, the instructor
directed students to write questions they may have had about homosexuality
on cards. These were collected for later use. Next, the instructor conducted
a 40-minute lecture on appropriate police behavior during Points-of-Contact
with the gay and lesbian community. The seven topics included: (1) traffic
stops, burglary, robbery; (2) lewd conduct and prostitution; (3) hate crimes;
(4) domestic violence; (5) civil disobedience; (6) bars; and, (7) personal
contact including death, AIDS, co-workers and the showers. For each situation,
the instructor gave personal experiences, theory, and suggested professional
behavior. No students asked questions during this section. Finally, the
last 30-minutes of class were devoted to Questions and Answers, where
answers were given to the previously collected Question Cards. Only
three students asked questions beyond the cards. No closure was attempted
by the instructor at the end of the 3 1/2 hour training.
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Lecture was the primary teaching methodology. Approximately 2 hours of the
training (representing 60% of the allotted time) was used for lecturing
on Personal Stories (63 minutes), Points-of-Contact (40 minutes)
and statement of goals (10 minutes). Instructor led activities and discussions
comprised the remainder of the training (38%) answering student questions
(Questions and Answers, 30 minutes), Stereotype Activity (27
minutes) and Gay Lifestyle Activity (13 minutes). No small group
or individual activities were engaged.
The content of the class covered a broad spectrum of information. The
Personal Stories gave deep insight into the conflicts between discovering
that one is gay or lesbian or having a child who is homosexual, and the
expectations of family and society. Choosing a police career and the impact
that had on ones homosexual behavior demonstrated the conceptual differences
between identity and behavior. The speakers sharing of discrimination experienced
as a gay or lesbian police officer in conjunction with the Stereotype
Activity helped students to become aware of their own feelings and beliefs,
and acted as a springboard for accurate information to dispel many anti-gay
stereotypes. The Gay Lifestyle Activity further reinforced the inaccuracies
of the gay stereotype. The Points-of-Contact gave specific behavioral
information in police situations where sexual orientation was relevant.
This part of the lecture was punctuated by the guest speakers sharing their
experiences. Finally, the Questions and Answers section was structured
so that students could safely ask questions and with anonymity.
The course followed very closely the written curriculum and adhered to the
goals stated by the instructors during the interviews. Breaking down stereotypes
and presenting appropriate police behaviors in a gay or lesbian context
were the two major areas covered by the training. Academic information about
sexual orientation was informally given and sexual orientation was presented
from an essentialist perspective.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The primary instructor demonstrated great skill at processing students through
the materials. The assistant speakers displayed a wide range of personalitiesfrom
quiet and withdrawn to being forthright and almost combative. Yet the use
of humor discouraged personal attacks from students. Unfortunately, no students
were interviewed and the class evaluations were unavailable to obtain their
opinion of the instructors. Finally, none of the instructors attempted closure
at the end of specific activities.
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What did students want to know or were concerned
with? (Note: 39 students of a class of 45 responded.)
Sixteen (42%) respondents wanted technical information
about sexual orientation. They were equally interested in the psychological
"causes" of homosexuality and issues of family, e.g., "Do
you wish you had children?" Other areas of interest for respondents
included: personal information about the instructors"Have you ever
felt alienated by co-workers?" (5 responses, 13%); professional conduct
by officers"How do you tell your T. O. [training officer] that you
dont like his jokes about gays and lesbians" (5 responses, 13%); negative
statements against gays and lesbians"Why do gays go around making
a bigger deal out of it than I. I dont go around joking and talking about
the fact that Im heterosexual" (6 responses, 15%); and, issues of
gay perspectives and politics"Would you like the gay and lesbian community
to be categorized as a separate group in terms of affirmative action?"
(7 responses, 17%).
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The agency has a long history of being anti-gay. Even as it implements new
policies and expands sexual orientation training, momentum of previous problems
and pending lawsuits make it difficult for gay and lesbian officers to come
out. CAT has a long history with the agency, but the current format of having
sexual orientation training as a separate module disconnected from the rest
of CAT undermines the coherence of the program. Furthermore, the "inversion
layer" of middle-management reinforces police subculture that emphasizes
hyper-masculine attitude and behaviorthe primary obstacle to gay men and
women officers.
It is in this agency atmosphere that sexual orientation training at the
academy is often seen as "bogus" and gays not representing a "real
culture." Just a few years back, as the sexual orientation trainers
would be leaving the room, the sergeant-at-arms would announce to the class
that everything they just heard was "false and PC crap." This
no longer happens and instructors report that the animosity and outright
hatred they experienced in the past have reduced significantly. The observed
class seemed to enjoy the training and only two or three students expressed
comments that could be considered severely homophobic or heterosexist. Although
students knew the anti-gay stereotypes, only 14% of them went out of their
way to make negative statements within their questions. Thus, anti-gay sentiments
may still be held by a majority of the students, but they are covertly held
opinions. It is unfortunate that instrumental empirical testing and interviews
with students were not allowed.
Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
The combination of instructors provided near perfect role-models for the
students. These instructors were the kinds of officers the recruits want
to become. All were very direct and could "talk the talk," since
they "walk the walk." Having two lesbian officers and two male
officers (one gay and the other heterosexual with a gay son) presented a
greater diversity than could have been accomplished with only one instructor.
To complete the diversity of the instructors, they need to include instructors
who are persons of color.
Instructors were clear in their goals for the class. They adhered closely
with the goals of the curriculum and the goals stated in interviews. This
clarity of goals and clarity of classroom process provided direct instruction
with little ambiguity.
An important component of the training is to help students become aware
of their own beliefs and feelings about homosexuality and to see this in
context with the police subculture. The Stereotype Activity and Gay
Lifestyle Activity were narrow in focus and presented very few opportunities
for students to learn about their own beliefs. These stereotypes could have
been extended into a discussion revolving around social institutions using
stereotypes to disenfranchise gays and lesbians, thus becoming a major source
of conflict between gays and lesbians and policebut this was not done. Instead,
students were helped to identify a few of their beliefs concerning homosexuality,
but they were not assisted in learning the social mechanisms involved and
the impact on them as police officers.
Police officers who shared personal stories in combination with the Points-of-Contact
lecture, provided relevant material; however, a number of things were
missing from the training. First, no time or activity was provided for students
to practice what they had learned. Second, closure was not attempted on
any topics. Third, even though the training covered immense quantities of
information, no materials were handed out. Fourth, students were not held
responsible for participating in the learning or demonstrated that they
had in fact, learned anything.
Additional Data:
The primary sexual orientation trainer for the Site #5 Police Academy maintained
a file of questions written by students from the past few years. All total,
I was given 376 additional responses beyond the ones collected during the
observed training. The primary category in which students had questions
concerned technical information (33%) regarding sexual orientation. Within
this primary category, students were most interested in the psychological
"causes" of homosexuality (23% of this category), issues of family
and interpersonal relationships (23% of this category), and issues of discrimination
(11% of this category). The secondary category of questions dealt with personal
questions about the instructor (23%), with half the respondents concerned
about having children and raising them in a gay household. Gay politics
(17%), negative statements against gays and lesbians (14%), and professional
conduct by officers (13%) were the three categories of lesser interest to
students.
.c3.Site #6
The Site #6 Police Academy is a regional training center attached to a community
college and staffed by four different police agencies and the sheriff department.
It took on its regional structure in response to economic factors that made
a one-agency academy economically unfeasible. CAT at the academy has followed
POST mandates and only recently included training on sexual orientation.
CAT also expanded in response to a city police altercation seven years ago.
A white police officer shot a black man during a scuffle who later claimed
that the officer made slurs toward him. This caused great controversy in
the city and resulted in the entire 3,000 employees going through sensitivity
training in one year. The trainer used a technique called "verbal judo"
that was remembered by every officer interviewed as "brain-dead."
Subsequently that trainer was held in disrespect. From this incident, the
city and the academy made greater efforts toward diversity issues.
The majority of recruits in the academy came from the largest police agency
in the area. The citys population of 1.1 million, is located in Southern
California. Site #6 has approximately 1977 sworn officers of which 274 are
women and 1703 are men. Recently, a captain level police officer was promoted
to oversee diversity in the agency. The academy program is highly valued
and thought by the program consultant to be "light-years ahead."
The agency administrator held similar beliefs and stating, "We are
far ahead [on diversity issues and training] of most other cities."
Gay and Lesbian Community:
Being a metropolitan area large enough to support its own gay and lesbian
community services center, the community is richly diverse. The community
is politically active with a gay and lesbian police officers organization
and an annual gay pride parade and festival. Interviews with bar owners
reported that relations with police have improved significantly over the
past 10 years. No longer do police raid bars. Instead, vice squad officers
immediately identify themselves to the bar owners when they come in. The
owners felt much of the gay bashing which still exits stems from people
not using common sense. This contrasted with political activists who claim
that, "Gays and lesbians should be able to walk anywhere at anytime
of day or night."
A recent brouhaha regarding participants in the gay pride parade reveals
much of the tension that still exists in the city. The former mayor of the
city became a radio talk show host promoting conservative ideology, including
sponsoring a group who wanted to march in the gay pride parade under the
banner "Normal People." The application was illegible and was
rejected. The "Normal People" organization resubmitted their application,
but again it was illegible and rejected. The court upheld the right of the
gay pride parade organizers to reject the application. Of course, the former
mayor cried discrimination. While this was going on, the police chief approved
the request from the gay police organization to march in the parade in uniform
and to sponsor a recruitment booth at the festival. While marching in the
parade, the open gay police officer reported, "The other officers turned
their backs on us while going by." In contrast, an interview with a
heterosexual male police officer conducted during a ride -along revealed,
[police] administrators bend over backwards [said
many times during the interview] for the gay and lesbian community. For
example, during the gay pride parade, officers are instructed not to arrest
anyone, but rather keep the peace . . . and it is not fair that gays and
lesbians can march in the Labor Day and St. Patrick Day Parades, but that
heterosexuals were barred from marching in the gay and lesbian parade.
. . if I had marched in my uniform in a parade, I would have been reprimanded,
but the gay officers werent.
Most of the gay community members were aware that the City has an anti-discrimination
policy that includes sexual orientation. This policy extends to both employment
and housing.
Police Subculture:
The police agency has had complaints and lawsuits filed against it for sexual
orientation discrimination. The last such suit was filed more than three
years ago. The effect of these complaints was the decision to "recruit
at the gay and lesbian parade." The gay and lesbian police organization
also reported recruits coming out in class and experiencing subsequent harassment,
open officers being passed over for promotion, and that "it has not
become a non-issue because there is still locker room talk, whispers and
talk behind your back." The previous police chief issued a "zero-tolerance"
memo about the harassment of gays and lesbians. The director of the gay
and lesbian community services center reported that the new police chief
"is committed to following the letter of the law and is beholding to
a very conservative police association . . . [and] has not done the same
leadership." The director also stated that "most of the feedback
is that the police performs appropriately. When it is not, the officer is
identified and is taken aside by administration. This showed how administration
support is more important." Finally, the city withdrew from supporting
the Boy Scouts of America because of their refusal to allow a gay male police
officer to continue as the official liaison between the police and the Scouts.
Asking how many open gay and lesbian officers there are on the police force
revealed some discrepancies. Police administrators thought there were approximately
five; bar owners said the same number; the gay and lesbian police organization
stated that there are "five males and two females out of 1900 officers";
whereas other gay police officers reported that there were eight. However,
the heterosexual police agency diversity administrator said, "Many
officers have come out of the closet."
A frequent comment made is that because no one ever witnesses a gay-bashing
there must not be any problems for gays and lesbians. One of the consultants
for CAT stated, "[I have] never been present during any discussion
of homosexuality. This is a reflection of [how good of a job they do] addressing
the issues." However, gays and lesbians are everywhere in significant
numbers and there should be constant conversations that indicate homosexuality.
Thus, if the issue is being adequately addressed, why is it never heard?
At the academy, there were two complaints in the past year. One occurred
between recruits. Each was investigated and resolved. But what does resolved
mean? One academy administrator reported, "I know of several instances
where some male recruits had difficulty with the lesbian officers. I had
a discussion with the group and it solved itself." None of the academy
administrators had witnessed gay bashing and believed that "there is
no ridicule of gays and lesbians [in the academy]," yet these are the
same administrators who were involved with the complaints filed during the
past year. As a further indicator that homosexuality is a hushed up issue,
one academy director shared, "the issue does not disturb me. In my
family, I have a cousin who is a lesbian [said with an almost inaudible
lowered voice]. I dont dwell on this and have a lot more in my life that
I value."
When academy students were asked to write a statement about their feelings
or beliefs on homosexuality or homosexuals, only 3 out of 105 students replied.
All responses were negative, such as, "I feel if an individual wants
to conduct homosexual acts, it is his business. But if he/she brings it
in the workplace or is open about being gay, then he should receive a warning.
Any further attempts to exploit should result in discipline. This is reasonable."
Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Program administrators and training instructors were asked to state the
goals of the sexual orientation training program, list the content they
expected to present and explain the teaching methodologies they expected
to use. This information will be compared to actual observations to assess
compliance. The respondents agreed that the two most important goals of
sexual orientation training were to "promote the equal treatment"
of gays and lesbians and to increase their awareness to gays and lesbians
through breaking down stereotypes. The male heterosexual diversity administrator
emphasized that administrators need to consider while evaluating officer
performance that, "Ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation are sometimes
used to fog the issue[s] and are [used as] scapegoats to evade performance
issues and that there are only 2 or 3 [categories of people] heteros, homos
and bisexuals." The CAT consultant took a more organizational approach
and claimed that sexual orientation training needed to "promote an
organizational perspective on diversity and show organizations that it is
in their vested interest to give police officers skills in people, peers
and community." Only one person, a lesbian community member, mentioned
that training goals must not try to change values or beliefs.
Respondents conveyed the belief that heterosexuals and homosexuals are more
alike than different. All the gay and lesbian officers and community members
thought that sexual orientation is inborn and not a choice and that scientific
information needed to be presented to support that position. The three heterosexual
male police administrators unknowingly took a deficit position concerning
homosexuality when they suggested training content that, "shows the
[gay] lifestyle is not wrong," "how they think," "no
specific facts since they do not deserve any treatment beyond what others
have," and "you dont have to accept sexual orientation, just understand
it as it relates to performance . . . there is a right or wrong way, no
in-between."
In the past, the gay and lesbian panel simply told their personal coming
out stories. Course evaluations indicated these were boring to the recruits.
The panel now limits the telling of personal stories and aims at a more
structured format. Open discussion, creating a supportive atmosphere for
candid sharing and video presentation of the history of the gay and lesbian
movement were methodologies respondents intended to use. The male heterosexual
diversity administrator believed that lecture, written assignments and expert
testimony would be used in training. Ultimately, all respondents believed
that, "No matter how technical you make the class, it still gets back
to personal stories."
Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
The police academy was very supportive of me and assigned a training officer
to coordinate class observations and data collection. However, from the
very beginning, things kept getting fumbled. Originally, training was scheduled
for early June. This date was slipped to August at which time I went to
the academy. Survey materials were distributed to all 105 students but only
15 students completed the PERQ and over half of the questionnaire booklets
were never returned. Also, the observed class was not sexual orientation
training, but rather sexual harassment. After a few more months, sexual
orientation training was rescheduled for November. The class was to be divided
into two and sexual orientation training given to each half on the same
day. I attempted to observe both trainings, but plane delays resulted in
missing the first class. Once I arrived, it was discovered that the second
class was canceled and the students had been combined into one large class
for the first sexual orientation training. Thus class observation was not
accomplished. Instead, class observation was reconstructed through intensive
interview. Finally, the distribution of materials for post-testing was worse
than the pre-testing. Only three students (out of 105) completed the PERQ
and again almost half of the questionnaire booklets were not returned. No
students volunteered for interview and only two students returned evaluation
forms. Overall, student participation was dismal and administration seemed
unwilling to encourage greater involvement with the research.
Typically, 3 to 4 sexual orientation trainings take place each year, but
during this research, training dates were slipped and eventually skipped.
Ultimately, only 2 trainings occurred almost 10 months apart, resulting
in one or two classes missing sexual orientation training. Police administration
explained that this occurred due to scheduling conflicts within the academy.
Participation in alternate interviews was much more successful. Participants
included: two heterosexual male academy administrators; two bar ownersone
lesbian and one gay male; one male heterosexual officer during ride-along;
one heterosexual male police agency administrator responsible for diversity;
one heterosexual female CAT agency consultant; two open gay police officers;
and panel members including a lesbian city manager who also publishes one
of the local gay and lesbian newspapers, civilian gay male city prosecutor,
and the lesbian director of gay and lesbian services center.
Administering the PERQ most likely had little impact on the class because
very few students actually completed it and the time between pre- and post-testing
was about four months. Likewise, I had no contact with the class and very
little impact. Finally, observing classes, engaging in ride-along and interviewing
were conducted over a total of 5 days.
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: This academy is known for being an "In-and-Out"
academy in which students alternate between class and field work for the
7 months of training. Students are exposed to issues of culture through
a 1-week field experience with students volunteering their time with one
of the local support organizations and through formal CAT. The observed
class had 105 uniformed recruits of which 19 were women and 86 were men.
All but 18 students were hired as recruits. Students casually entered and
exited the classroom, with breaks often including line-ups and calisthenics.
Instructor(s): Sexual orientation training relied upon the local gay and
lesbian community center for speakers and the training itself. A uniformed
officer introduced the panel and the panel members (non-officers) shared
their experiences.
Setting: The classroom was extremely large with rows of flat tables and
an isle running down the center. The front of the room had a chalk board
and TV. During the sexual orientation training, six administrators stood
along the sides of the room.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
The female director of the local gay and lesbian community services center
acted as panel moderator. After a brief introduction, Coming Out Stories
were shared by three of the civilian panel members. This encouraged approximately
eleven students to ask questions that focused on the causes of sexuality
and supported the belief that homosexuality is a deviance. One of the panel
members was an open gay city prosecutor who provided technical information
about homosexuality including the Kinsey chart, genetic vs. choice arguments,
stereotypes, etc. After the 50-minute lecture and a 10-minute break, the
second hour of training included 40 minutes on Police Scenarios and
20 minutes for Questions and Answers. For the Police Scenarios,
a 1-page handout was given to each student that listed 4 scenarios including:
(1) father reports a teenage runaway, (2) drive-by name calling, (3) domestic
fight, and (4) beating in a public park known for sexual activity. The male
prosecutor led the class in an open discussion about these scenarios from
which eight students asked for classifications of the law. The final Questions
and Answers section was largely unmotivating with only seven questions
being asked from a room of over 100 persons. These questions covered domestic
violence, heterosexual double standard, hate crimes and teenage runaways.
No closure was attempted at the end of the training.
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Lecture was the primary teaching methodology that constituted 46% of class
time. Even when students could be involved, very few did. One lesbian panel
member reported, "probably not more than 10 people spoke and 5 of those
repeated. The larger the class the less likely they will participate."
Even during the student participation sections that comprised 36% of class
time, the gay male city prosecutor reported, "the class died after
the scenarios section. Although there were a few more questions, it died."
Content emerged from three activities. The two coming out stories helped
spark questions about the formation of sexual and gender identities and
particularly issues of homosexuality. Some of the panel members reported
excessive time had been spent on bi-sexuality and thought that having a
bi-sexual woman on the panel confused the issue. Sexual orientation was
presented as genetically determined. The Police Scenarios presented
technical legal information and described appropriate police conduct. The
final Questions and Answers section took 18% of class time and touched
upon a number of issues little participation by students was noted. Thus,
the total course content was expected to emerge from three structured activities
and primarily from student questions.
No assessment of student comprehension or closure of topics was attempted.
The goal for "equal treatment" was stated many times during the
training. The goal to increase awareness to gays and lesbians through breaking
down stereotypes was indirectly addressed. Lack of planning for specific
content weakened the ability to achieve that goal.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
Unfortunately, no student evaluations of the instructor or panel members
were made available. Also, I was unable to observe the training. The instructor
and panel members may have been dynamic and skillful at presenting the information.
Indirectly, the low number of student questions suggests that the instructor
and panel members lacked the skill to involve students.
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What did students want to know or were concerned
with? (Note: Only 6 students of 105 responded.)
Five of the responses involved making moral statements
condemning homosexuality, e.g., "if homosexuals have a need to be
out of the closet in order to be happy, why cant that apply to those who
have sex with animals, the man-boy love association, and any other deviant/unconventional
behavior (prostitutes, polygamist, etc.) Wont this cause a downward pressure
on public morality?" The only real question was if morality could
be legislated.
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
Although the police agency made strong anti-discrimination statements about
sexual orientation, the low number of open gay and lesbian officers indicates
there are continuing conflicts within the agency. Predominately, people
do not see or hear overt gay bashing and incorrectly assume that sexual
orientation is a non-issue. Subtle discriminations continue and are mirrored
by the police diversity administrator who voices deficit positions concerning
gays and lesbians. These mixed signals influence the academy instruction.
The academy has allocated too little time and has over-sized classes for
the sexual orientation training. The program goals are too broad with insufficient
guidance for program development. Content is expected to emerge from three
activities with only one activity (scenarios) aimed at specific police information.
As an individual module, sexual orientation training is not connected to
the overall CAT program and is unsupported through the agency. As students
complained, "Why do we have to study this stuff, we already know this
. . . [and] why gays and lesbian and not African-Americans or other groups?"
Finally, it was reported that the panel was better focused than in previous
classes, yet very little student interaction took place indicating a lack
of skill in motivating students.
Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Neither the instructor nor panel members were appropriate role-models. None
of these people were the kind of people the recruits wanted to become. The
gay male city prosecutor was the closest to being a police officer, yet
his "very flashy" demeanor and civilian status made him a less
than ideal role-model.
The goals for the training were vague and no assessment of student understanding
of sexual orientation was attempted. Subsequently, the instructors were
unable to prepare information for the students or assist students to higher
levels of understanding. Some of the personal stories were relevant and
solicited student involvement.
Once a new skill is taught, practice is necessary. The scenario activity
would have been the perfect opportunity to practice new skills but students
were not adequately prepared due to lack of specific content. At no time
was closure attempted for any of the activities or discussions. Finally,
students were not held responsible for what they learned, either through
application on a test, homework, reflective project, or other individual
activity.
.c3.Site #7
I was hired to teach sexual orientation training at one of the basic academies
in Southern California. The Dean of the academy encouraged me to experiment
with teaching methodologies and course content. As such, I became a participant-observer
at this location. The subsequent two sections (Sites #8 and #9) will discuss
what was changed since the initial training (Site #7) and present the data
that was collected.
Site #7 Police Academy is a basic academy associated with a community college
located in the eastern section of Los Angeles County. The academy serves
many of the neighboring police agencies. CAT has followed POST mandates
and recently included sexual orientation training. The academy Dean is active
in developing CAT at the state level and believes that "law enforcement
is at the forefront of training because it is mandated, but when it comes
to addressing cultural issues, law enforcement is catching up."
Gay and Lesbian Community:
The immediate area surrounding Site #7 Police Academy is a suburban community
of Los Angeles. Gays and lesbians are invisible and are only seen at a few
cruise spots or through the college student organization. There are no gay
or lesbian bars, no AIDS support group or organized political groups. Gays
and lesbians often travel to Los Angeles or West Hollywood to participate
in gay culture.
Police Subculture:
The academy culture is ascertained from four sources: interviews with the
Dean, recruit volunteer and instructor; and classroom observations including
student statements. The Dean reported:
the academy is not very accepting [of gays and
lesbians] does not want to talk about it. I think you are tolerated as
long as you dont become visible. I think we have 2 employees who are gay/lesbian
and they are accepted. No one bothers them and they do not broach the subject.
Not an issue in workplace. The issue is not accepted in workplace. Realistically,
the mere fact that I can identify them, shows how open it is. I never thought
about this until asked this question. I base my judgment on the reaction
I had in getting the [civilian] sexual orientation training instructor
hired it was very difficult.
A student reported:
The class was unruly to the instructor. He seemed
generally very nice. He seemed very interested in teaching us while students
seemed most interested in harassing him. The students were very negative.
In the shower [after the sexual orientation training] started a witch hunt
for the 10%. Buddies would joke with each other "are you one of the
10%ers?" Overall maturity level [of the class] seemed low. Im bothered
by the level. I am concerned that I will have to work with these kinds
of guys. A couple of days later they were still joking around.
As the instructor, I sensed the academy to be very homophobic. The other
instructors showed interest in my work and the Dean was very supportive,
but no gay or lesbian staff member came forward and identified themselves
to me. The recruit class was extremely hostile toward me during training.
When asked what official policies protect gays and lesbian in the workplace,
the Dean stated, "the community college is regulated under Title 9,
Title 6, Cal law, etc." Also, the Dean reports that there have been
no complaints filed in the police academy based upon anti-gay discrimination.
One panic phone call was received from a lesbian student who was concerned
about completing the PERQ accurately. She was fearful of being discovered
at the academy. Although I tried to convince her that all data was confidential,
she indicated that she most likely would not turn in the questionnaire.
Students were asked to write comments on the acceptance of gays and lesbians
in the academy. Out of 94 students in class, only 18 replied to this question.
Seven respondents believed that homosexuality is not accepted"they
are ridiculed until we have to confront them during a situation or incident."
Six respondents claimed, "I have never seen/heard about gay bashing
except on television." Three students reported that the academy is
not homophobic. Finally, a few negative comments were made, including "educate
people about the vices of sexual deviants."
In another activity, students were asked to write statements concerning
their beliefs and/or feelings about homosexuals or homosexuality. Out of
94 students, 39 students responded. Twenty-seven (70%) students made negative
statementsthe second highest level of negative statements of all academies
in this research. Of these negative statements, nine (33%) made moral and
religious condemnations"In the Bible, in the book of Genesis it states
that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Also that because of unnatural
relationships they were given in them diseases"; six (22%) made statements
about feeling uncomfortable being around gays"Id be afraid to spend
time with a fag because he might try and pick me up"; and, five (19%)
said that homosexuality is a mental disorder"Homosexuals are sick puppies,"
and "Homosexuals have had a traumatic incident in early childhood which
caused them to gravitate toward members of the same sex." Of the remaining
statements, six (15%) were generally positive statements including this
humorous perspective by a non-gay student"There is nothing wrong with
gay guys. They are usually good looking guys who work out. Since they like
each other, they as a result leave us straight single guys more women to
choose from," and five (13%) made factual statements about homosexuality"[gays
and lesbians are] discriminated against."
Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Program administrators were asked to state the goals of the sexual orientation
training program, list the content they expected to present and explain
the teaching methodologies they expected to use. This information will be
compared to actual observations to assess compliance. The Dean believed
the goal for CAT should be to provide awareness about other cultures. Given
the limited time for training and student level, the Dean stated, "Training
gives only basic awareness and hopefully self-awareness . . . [and] we are
kidding ourselves if we think we can do more." I took a more proactive
position, wanting to change beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and values of
students away from negative gay stereotypes so as to make their behaviors
be more gay positive. Also to illustrate and transmit the skills needed
to effectively communicate and work fairly with the gay subculture. I saw
my position as a provider of information and facilitator of educational
processes. I understood the importance of being a role model for students,
and was apologetic for not being an appropriate role model because I do
not have a law enforcement background.
The Dean wanted accurate information presented to students, although he
unintentionally took a deficit position, stating, "No accurate information
[exists] on what causes it." The Dean hoped the information will "help
to eliminate myths and convey the message that no matter what our personal
feelings and values are, they will treat gays and lesbian equally and learn
what legally should be done."
As instructor, I also wanted to provided accurate information with the goal
of showing that, homosexuality is normal, natural and very common and that
sexual orientation is stigmatized in our culture. This stigmatization accounts
for homophobia and heterosexism and facilitate gay-bashing and discrimination.
Anti-gay stereotypes affect police performance and puts them at risk for
complaints from fellow employees and the community. We need to deconstruct
polar gender- and sexual-identities and bring these concepts down to the
personal level by showing that many police officers have engaged in homosexual
behavior and homosexuality represents a hidden knowledge.
Teaching methodology suggested by the Dean included:
experiential activity to develop self-identity.
This issue is so explosive and value laden, that to try and make any changes
in this group would make more damage than good . . . This whole area doesnt
deal with culture, its human behavior. One of the things I do in my class
is to get them to talk, that its a comfortable atmosphere to share. I dont
tell them what is right or wrong because this questions their life choices
and creates resentment and defensivenessthus they shut up.
As the instructor for the class, I believed in using many individual and
small group activities to assist students toward becoming aware of their
personal beliefs, attitudes and feelings. Accurate information on human
sexuality gives students the knowledge needed to overcome stereotypes. Presentation
of points-of-contact supports appropriate conduct. Together, the newly discovered
self-awareness and appropriate police behaviors can be applied to real police
situations.
Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
The Dean of the academy fought for more than a year to allow me to come
on staff as the instructor of sexual orientation training. The first two
recruit classes were taught identical content with identical methodology
(here referred to as Site #7). The PERQ was given to students two or three
days before the sexual orientation training and asked to complete it at
home. They held onto the survey materials, and after the sexual orientation
training were instructed to turn their answer sheet over and take the PERQ
a second time. All materials were recovered the next day. Additionally,
students were asked to write questions they may have and/or statements about
their beliefs and feelings regarding homosexuals and homosexuality. These
written materials were collected. Although students were asked to volunteer
for interview, only one participated. Course evaluations were provided to
me for one class.
I had significant impact on the students because of my status as instructor.
Administering the PERQ sensitized students to issues they otherwise may
not have considered. Finally, each time the course was taught and assessment
materials distributed, one or more students would call me in panic. They
were concerned about being identified gay or lesbian if they answered accurately.
These students disclosed that the small network of gay and lesbian recruits
talked amongst themselves about the fear they had being found out. Although
I reassured them that all materials and interviews were confidential, they
indicated that many would decline participation.
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Recruit training lasts 19 weeks. CAT is conducted
for the minimum POST requirement of 24-hours, of which 4 hours are devoted
to sexual orientation training. Two different classes were taught and observed
each with approximately ninety-four (94) uniformed recruits attendedat the
ratio of 2 women to 92 men. These classes were approximately half way through
with the training program. The academy was very formal with students being
marched (run) in and out of the classroom, standing at attention before
sitting, and engaged in lineup and calisthenics during breaks. During sexual
orientation training, the Dean of the school and occasionally other instructors
observed the class.
Setting: The classroom was not air-conditioned which made teaching in 100
degree smoggy summer weather very uncomfortable. Flat tables with two people
to a desk were arranged in rows with one isle along one wall. The front
of the classroom had a dry marker board, TV, electric roll-down screen,
flipcharts and an overhead projector.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
During the 5-minute Introduction, I stated the goals of the training
and shared some personal background information including my academic credentials,
political activism, my long career as a professional ballet dancer and my
being fairly effeminate since childhood. Also, a 72-page Sexual Orientation
Booklet was distributed. Next, I engaged students in a 30-minute Stereotype
Activity using small groups to write gay and lesbian stereotypes on
flipchart paper followed by a class-wide discussion. All students were involved,
there was much nervous laughter, and most the terms were extremely negative.
Following this, I lectured on Homophobia using three transparencies
and referred students to three topic papers in the booklet. I discussed
the similarities between homophobes and police subculture. Students were
surprised at the primary expulsion of lesbians from the military (9 women
to every 1 man). Next, students were engaged in the 8-minute Gay "Lifestyle"
Activity where heterosexual and homosexual daily life routines were
compared to demonstrate that there are no differences between gays and straights
(identical to the activity discussed in Site #5). Four students participated
in the activity with much of the class laughing at the realization that
sex constitutes very little of anyone life. Just before the break, I had
student write questions they may have had about homosexuality to be answered
later. After a 15-minute break, a 40-minute lecture on scientific information
on sexual orientation was given. I attempted to present the Shively and
DeCecco gender-sexual-emotional identity theories along with cross-cultural
analysis to broaden the essentialist perspective promoted by biological
researchers and Kinsey. Fourteen students asked questions, seemed highly
agitated and were primarily rejecting of the research. Next, the 20-minute
video "Whos Afraid of Project 10" was shown to highlight the tragedy
of gay teen suicide. Even still, class discussion resulted in two students
stating that counseling for gay and lesbian youths should not be provided
by schools. The 15-minute break was used to engage students in a Famous
Gays and Lesbians activity, where students work from a list of gays
and lesbians and try to discover the name of the famous person that was
attached to their backs. Upon return from break, students shared their surprise
at who was included in the list. I then lectured for 5-minutes on Hate
Crimes using one transparency and referred students to one article and
one topic paper in the booklet. Next, I lectured for 10-minutes on Homophobia
within Police Agencies referring students to three topic papers in the
booklet. The fear of being discovered to be gay was personalized through
a verbal round-robin reading by students of the poem, "I Fear."
Twenty-eight students were involved in the poem reading and six questions
were fielded about the status of the Mitch Grobesons suit and the issue
of outing. This flowed directly into a 15-minute lecture of Points-of-Contact.
This lecture was supported by three topic papers and community resource
list. Using Points-of-Contact as a lead-in, a 15-minute small group
activity and instructor-led discussion was conducted on Appropriate Police
Behavior. Twenty-four students participated in the discussion, mostly
taking the politically correct position to each scenario. Finally, a 15-minute
Questions and Answers session was conducted using the questions submitted
earlier as the initial base. Many students hands went up for more questions,
but time ran out for the 3 hours and 34 minute class.
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Lecture was the primary instructional methodology and was used 43% of the
time. Lecture was used to transmit content on homophobia, basic information
on sexual orientation, teen suicide and hate crime specifics. Instructor-led
discussion or activities were the next favored instruction methodology.
It was used 33% of the time and included the Stereotype Activity, Gay Lifestyle
Activity, Homophobia within Police Agencies, and Questions and Answers activity.
Individual or small group methods were used 16% of the time for conveying
information on famous gays and lesbians and appropriate police behavior.
Lecture with some questions and answers was used only for police points-of-contact.
The delivered content followed closely the curriculum written by the instructor
for the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Police Advisory Task Force. The
content was highly structured and overwhelming considering the 86 pages
of materials given each student. Sexual orientation was not presented from
an essentialist perspective, rather one that includes both genetic and environmental
explanations and attempted to deconstruct students polar concepts of gender-
and sexual-identities. Appropriate police behaviors during point-of-contact
followed the recommendations of the curriculum. The content closely matched
the goals stated by the curriculum.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
I was not well received and students displayed a polar attitude about the
course. From a class of 94 students, 43 completed evaluation forms and stated:
the instructor was defensive and had a negative attitude (9 students, 21%);
the instructor was knowledgeable and very informative (7 students, 16%);
instructor was biased and tried to impose his values (6 students, 14%);
the instructor was pleasant and good but needed more time (5 students, 12%);
and, the instructor rushed through materials (4 students, 9%). As one student
wrote, "[instructor] was outnumbered and left too open for criticism
. . . Overall good info for cadets to know because our class showed a lot
of ignorance and fear toward something they did not know and understand."
In contrast, other students wrote, "If the instructor was more open
and not defensive and did not rush through everything, maybe the class would
of learned a lot more" and "he brought materials that was written
by gay men and said that that was correct. Why didnt he bring books by straight
men, the kind that all of us thought would be correct."
During the training, there were times when students were frustrated by the
rush of materials and my having to cut off questions and debate in order
to proceed to the next topic. Of particular interest, after the video on
teen suicide that featured the open lesbian teacher, Virginia Uribe, issues
of open gay teachers in the classroom came up. One student stood up and
said that he would remove his child from a class where the teacher was openly
gay or lesbian. I said to the student, "Look me in the eyes and tell
me that I am not your equal." The student hesitated and said that was
not what he meant, "Just that I dont want my child to grow up thinking
it is OK." I repeated the demand emphasizing that, "What you have
just said implies that I am not your equal, and I dont accept that."
Other altercations such as this occurred during class and is probably the
source of the belief that I was defensive.
The Dean commented, "the problem with the instructor is he is advocating
a cause and it builds resistance. There is a difference between conveying
information or advocating a cause. The class should emphasize awareness,
facts and feeling. This is difficult because there really are no known facts
about homosexuality."
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What stood out in their minds? (Note: Out of
a class of 94 students, 36 made written responses to this question.)
Nineteen respondents (53%) thought the content
was a positive experience, especially learning that gays and lesbians "are
normal people." In contrast, four (11%) of respondents felt the content
was biased and wrong, and did not emphasize "deviant homosexuals."
Furthermore, five (13%) respondents thought the instructor was too militant,
biased, defensive and tried to change peoples views. Finally, four (11%)
respondents remembered the group activities including the famous gays and
lesbians.
B. What did students want to know or were concerned
with? (Note: Out of a class of 94 students, 84 responded to this question.)
Respondents were interested in technical information
about sexual orientation (37 students, 44%). Primarily they wanted to know
about the psychology and causes of homosexuality. Even though students
were asked to write a question regarding homosexuality, instead, twenty-four
(28%) chose to write statements condemning homosexuality on moral grounds"do
you honestly feel God condones homosexuality?", and challenging research"Why
does the gay community continually use spurious or false research and present
it as fact?" Sixteen (19%) respondents were interested in personal
questions about the instructor including why he is not married, does he
have female friends, and his relationship with his family.
C. Student suggestions for improvements to the
training. (Note: Out of a class of 94 students, 32 responded to this question.)
Ten (32%) respondents wanted more class time and
more time devoted to questions and answers. Eight (24%) mentioned the need
for greater diversity in instructors and mostly wanted open gay and lesbian
officers as instructors. The same number of respondents (eight, 24%) also
wanted more content on police topics.
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The academy had taken a proactive approach to sexual orientation training,
devoting 1/6th of its CAT to this issue. No other subgroup, e.g., African-Americans,
was given as much time or emphasis. The academy Dean encouraged me to experiment
with teaching methodology and content and to photocopy full books of information
for distributing to students for future reference. Furthermore, the Dean
led a protracted political fight to obtain my services as sexual orientation
instructor against the conservative elements at the academy. Yet the many
deficit position comments about gays and lesbians made by the Dean, along
with the absence of open gay and/or lesbian staff members or students suggests
the academy environment is decidedly homophobic. I found the students at
this academy held some of the strongest negative beliefs and feelings about
homosexuals and homosexuality encountered in the entire research project.
This is also the only academy from which panicked students called me to
discuss survey confidentiality. It is within the context of this homophobic
atmosphere that sexual orientation training was conducted.
Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Although the training followed a very successful curriculum and training
process that is well received at other agencies and academies, it became
clear that I (the instructor) was not an appropriate role model for the
students. Students respond best to instructors who are the kinds of persons
they aspire to emulate. In police recruit training on sexual orientation,
the best role-model would be an open gay or lesbian active officer of many
years experience and who is well respected for his/her professionalism,
conforms to gender stereotypes, and is well liked for his/her personality.
I am not from a law enforcement background, was viewed as an intellectual
and outsider due to my academic affiliations and degrees, was somewhat gender
non-conforming because of my many years as a ballet dancer, and my political
activism painted me to be antagonistic to police.
Instead of assessing what students knew and building upon that knowledge,
I started with the topic of controlling sub-populations based on stereotypes.
Using that awareness, academic content on human sexuality was delivered
along with the consequences of stigmatization. This process prepared students
for the delivered content, but because it was not personalized through some
other process, it made the relevancy of the material unclear. Once appropriate
behavior was discussed through points-of-contact lecture and activity, students
were given the chance to practice their new found knowledge. This was effective.
The ending questions and answer activity provided indirect closure on the
training, but this could have been better formalized. Students were not
held responsible for participating in the training or for demonstrating
that they learned the intended content. Although I knew the 85-pages of
handout materials was impossible to cover, I was encouraged by the Dean
to distribute them since homosexuality is "hidden" and students
could review them at home.
.c3.Site #8
This class was very similar to Site #7, but with changes reflecting the
input from the previous class and in recognition that most of these students
were police administrators. The changes included:
1. The inclusion of a self-awareness activity
based on a Forced-Choice value clarification technique in the first hour.
(For details of this technique, see Appendix F.)
2. In the second hour, the amount of time spent
on discussion regarding the sources and causes of sexual orientation was
reduced and the video, "Growing Up Gay" was used as the lead
into the discussion of sexual orientation theory. In this video, Brian
McNaught brilliantly weaves the experiences of growing up gay in a heterosexist
and homophobic society with research on human sexuality and identity formation.
The video, "Whos Afraid of Project 10" was eliminated.
3. In the third section of the class, a small
group activity was included to discuss appropriate officer behavior in
police situations that contained a gay or lesbian content. Less time was
spent on the theory and history of hate crimes, but more time was spent
on point-of-contact.
4. The class did not have enough time to conduct
a question and answer period.
5. To build student responsibility for demonstrating
that they learned the intended course content, students were required to
complete a homework assignment in order to obtain credit for participating
in the training. This assignment was ungraded and asked students to; (1)
tell about three things they remember about the class, (2) identify three
things that could improve the class, and (3) respond to a scenario where
they have been assigned responsibility for cultural awareness training
on sexual orientation at their agency and what they would do or say to
convince resistant officers that homosexuality is both normal, natural
and very common.
Police Subculture:
Unfortunately, no students from this class volunteered
to be interviewed for the research. However, students were asked to write
statements about their feelings and beliefs on homosexuals and homosexuality.
Thirty-five (35) of the 38 students responded. Fourteen (41%) respondents
made negative statements about gays and lesbians, particularly religious
and moral condemnations such as, "This is why God destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah. Your gay agenda is strictly a sex issue." They also believed
that gays and lesbians should "stay in the closet" and are confused
about their gender. Eleven (32%) respondents made positive statements about
gays and lesbians and felt they should have equal rights. One student said,
"When I was younger I thought all homosexuals should be shot. But as
I get older I learn more. I now know they are people just like I am. To
each its own." Finally, nine (27%) respondents simply made a factual
statement about gays and lesbians.
Although 41% of responses were negative, this is the lowest number obtained
from any of the agencies or academies participating in this activity. I
conclude that the initial level of homophobia in this group was lower than
other groups at this academy.
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: This was an advanced-officer training program
of thirty-eight (38) uniformed officers and administrators including 9 women
and 29 men. All students came from a particular local agency which contracted
with this academy to fulfill the POST requirement for CAT. The class structure
was extremely casual.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
This 3 hours and 31 minutes training used many of the elements used in Site
#7 and will not be fully described here. A 72-page booklet was distributed
to all students and was referred to during the training besides the use
of overhead transparencies. The training included a 5-minute Introduction,
35-minute Stereotype Activity, 12-minute Homophobia lecture,
and a 2-minute Gay "Lifestyle" Activity. Student participation
was similar to Site #7. A new element was the inclusion of a 10-minute Self-Awareness
Activity based on a Forced-Choice value clarification technique. By
requiring students to prioritize scenarios that contained a homosexual situation,
they became aware of their values and feelings. All students were observed
to be engaged in this activity and were particularly disturbed by two of
the scenarios: (1) discovering their teenage son engaging in homosexual
behavior, and (2) a male police officer leaves his wife after discovering
that he is gay. Again, just before the break students were directed to write
questions for later discussion. After break, 31 minutes of the hour video"Growing
Up Gay," were used to vividly demonstrate the difficulties faced by
gay people growing up in a heterosexist society. Key concepts from the video
were written onto the chalk board and used to flow directly into a 32-minute
lecture on Basic Information on Sexual Orientation. Twenty-five students
asked questions and primarily made negative comments challenging the research
as being biased and that the material was covered too fast. The Famous
Gays and Lesbians activity was conducted during the 15-minute break
with much student participation. After the break, Hate Crimes was
presented for 5 minutes. Small group activities were used to process the
30-minute Harassment of Gay and Lesbian Officers activity. Here students
were asked to work in groups of four to discuss and find solutions to specific
police scenarios that involved gays and lesbians. All students were engaged
and the consensus was that strong administrative directives could solve
most of the problems. Having gotten students to think about their behavior
on the job, 30 minutes were then devoted to a lecture on Points-of-Contacts.
To close the training, I asked students to take home and complete an assignment
that was due the next day. This assignment placed students in the position
of being responsible for the sexual orientation training program at their
agency and asked them what they would do to improve the environment for
gays and lesbians.
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
More time was spent on self-awareness, the stigmatization of gays and lesbians,
and Points-of-Contact than at Site #7. Less time was spent on specific sexual
orientation content and questions and answers. New to this training, were
scenarios applicable for police administrators. The amount of time allocated
for pure lecture was slightly reduced and more individual or small group
activities were engaged.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
Unfortunately, student evaluations were not available from the class. In
review of student responses to the question of what stood out in their mind,
twice as many respondents (7%) thought the instructor was, "very positive,"
"induced good group participation and thought," and "so open
and felt good discussing situations with us." A minority of respondents
(2%) felt the instructor "was trying to get us to give our approval"
and "the openness of the instructor seemed to shock some students .
. . [and] was a bit too graphic for my likes." These were significantly
different student comments than Site #7 where on the same question 13% of
students expressed disapproval of the instructor and no student gave a positive
rating to the instructor.
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What stood out in their minds? (Note: Out of
a class of 38 students, 31 students responded to this question.)
The respondents were equally divided over the
issue of content. Eleven (35%) respondents thought that content specifically
on sexual orientation was a positive experience "The lecturer was
very positive and the barrage of previously unknown information was positive."
An equal number of respondents thought the content was negative and challenged
the accuracy of the statistics"I cannot believe 75% of this information."
Finally, four (13%) respondents mentioned the class activities as being
memorable. One student wrote, "I received mixed emotions with the
[stereotype] activity because being a heterosexual black male, I observed
that the same people who chose the words for my race are the same persons
that set the standard for all out war on all groups regardless of racial
boundary or sexual orientation.
B. What did students want to know or were concerned
with? (Note: Out of a class of 38 students, 28 students responded to this
question.)
Technical information about sexual orientation,
particularly on psychology and AIDS was mentioned by twelve (42%) respondents.
Personal information and feelings"how did you tell your parents you
were gay"about the instructor were sought by seven (25%) respondents.
Even though students were asked for questions, six students (22%) gave
anti-gay statements such as "why dont they conceal their sexual acts
from our of crowds of children" and "why should homosexuals have
special rights?"
C. Student suggestions for improvements to the
training. (Note: Out of a class of 38 students, 31 students responded to
this question.)
Eleven (35%) respondents felt that more overall
time, more time allocated for questions and answers and more activities
were needed. Nine (29%) respondents wanted more information specifically
aimed at law enforcement and the causes of discrimination and homophobia.
Classroom materials were mentioned by four (13%) respondents who wanted
more visual aides, videos, handout materials and to identify when materials
were written by heterosexuals. Interestingly, two (6%) respondents wanted
information about the "other" side to be presented, specifically
"Bring in former gays or lesbians to share their experience . . .
Discuss constructive ways to help those who want to change their life style
to the normal standard."
D. Response to the homework assignment. (Note:
Out of a class of 38 students, 29 students completed this assignment.)
Ten students (35%) recommended that to overcome
resistance to accepting gays and lesbians, supervisors should emphasis
the code of ethics that all people are to be treated the same. But, in
the same breath, six (21%) respondents stated that they could not teach
that homosexuality is normal, natural and common, because they do not believe
that that is true and that they have no right to try and change peoples
beliefs. For example, students wrote, "Support code of ethics but
cant defend homosexuality because against Jesus Christ," or "equal
treatment deserves same rights but not persuade that natural or normal
because it isnt." For two (7%) respondents, they went so far as to
say they could not administer the program because, "dont believe it,
thus couldnt teach it" or "not normal or natural, thus could
not administrate the program." Respondents mainly suggested the use
of educational programs that included gay and lesbian speakers, videos,
teaching materials and collaborations with other agencies. One student
suggested a change in measuring police productivity from the number of
arrests to an analysis of types of arrests to see if particular populations
are over-represented.
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
Although the academy was the same, this particular group of students were
distinctively less homophobic than the recruit classes. That is not to say
this class or the agency they come from was not homophobic. Approximately
half the respondents made anti-gay comments somewhere in their writings.
The goals for the training shifted away from academic research on sexual
orientation and more toward self-awareness and specific application for
police administrators. These were achieved through more use of individual
and small group activities and less lecture. Finally, I seemed better received
than by the recruits even though the same personal presentation was made.
Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Although I was not the appropriate role-model for this class of police administrators,
I seemed to be better received or tolerated. This may reflect the less homophobic
beliefs displayed by the class in general and/or that academics may have
more in common with police administrators.
The use of a self-awareness activity in conjunction with the stereotype
activity provided a greater understanding about the mechanisms of stigmatization.
The video, "Growing Up Gay" greatly summarized the need to lecture
on sexual orientation, but the speaker in the video is again not the appropriate
role-model for these students. From their new understanding about homosexuality
and stigmatization, students were allowed to explore police administrative
scenarios that contained a gay and lesbian concern. Finally, a review of
point-of-contact helped to bring closure to the training.
The homework assignment attempted to allow students to reflect upon course
content and put them in a real situation where they would need to apply
their new knowledge. However, this assignment caused much commotion. The
Dean of the academy revealed to the instructor that the contracting agency
complained about the assignment because it violated labor laws to require
employees to do work during their off-duty time. Also, unspecified complaints
about the content and purpose of the assignment were made to the agency
who then complained to the Dean of the academy.
.c3.Site #9
This class was an evolution of Site #7 and Site #8 with changes based on
input from the previous three classes. These changes include:
1. During the personal history, all references
to my 25-year career as a professional classical ballet dancer were removed,
plus any references to my being effeminate as a child. It was hoped that
this would make me more acceptable and a better role-model for students.
2. All references to my gay activism, including
participation in public demonstrations or wrongful termination based on
sexual orientation discrimination were not disclosed. Again, it was hoped
that this would make me more acceptable.
3. Because of the inability to obtain openly gay
or lesbian officers to come and speak to the class, the first activity
was to watch the "Gay Cops" segment of 60-Minutes.
4. The Stereotype Activity was simplified
and controlled to limit the use of derogatory terms. It was hoped this
would reduce the negative feelings and comments that sometimes arises from
this activity. This negativity has been observed to spread over into other
discussions and activities.
5. The section on sexual orientation theory was
reduced in time and complexity, the multi-dimensional Shively and DeCecco
model was discontinued and the normal sexuality distribution was substantiated
through comparison of distributions found in heterosexist societies with
those where homosexuality is institutionalized. I did not want to go so
far as to promote the erroneous essentialist argument. Thus, sexual orientation
was presented as a combination of biology and environment, stating that
the better question is to ask why our society discriminates against anyone
who is not heterosexual.
6. The Points-of-Contact section was expanded
by including police stories to illustrate each of the points. It was desirable
to use open gay and lesbian police officers for this activity, but none
were available.
7. The use of a homework assignment was discontinued
due to the poor acceptance in the last class of police administrators and
no other reflective assignment was devised.
Police Subculture:
No students volunteered to participate for the interview portion of the
research. However, I received a number of panic phone calls from gay and
lesbian recruits concerned over the confidentiality of the survey. These
students indicated that the gays and lesbian recruits whom they knew would
not participate in any parts of the research.
I asked the Dean if there were any gay or lesbian staff members at the academy
and if he would approach them about participating in the training. The Dean
contacted one of the lesbian instructors who contacted me. She was hesitant
at first to participate as she was open only to a handful of people. After
discussion and sharing instructional materials with her, she consented to
participate in the sexual orientation training. However, she was not available
due to scheduling conflicts.
Students were asked to write statements about their feelings and beliefs
about homosexuals and homosexuality. Of the 65 students, 62 responded to
this activity. Thirty-seven (60%) respondents felt that homosexuality is
morally wrong, a mental disorder and that they should stay hidden. For example,
one student wrote, "Gays are wrong and have a sick mind in being able
to release their sexual frustration in a unnatural sex act." Another
student wrote, "Whats the point of people saying youre gay, what do
you people have to prove to us. You dont hear heterosexuals telling people
that they are heterosexual." Thirteen (21%) respondents made positive
statements about gays and lesbians and their right to equal treatment. Finally,
twelve (19%) respondents simply made factual statements.
Students were also asked directly about the academy culture. Forty-one (41)
students out of the class of 65 responded. Eighteen respondents (44%) held
negative beliefs about gays and lesbians. Ten of these negative statements
were moral and religious condemnations of homosexuality. One student reported,
"Awful!!! The most homophobic people Ive known. The jokes and comments
are so bad, I cant say what to do to stop it." Another student wrote,
"Law enforcement in general is a homophobic profession. We joke among
ourselves, in a sense "prove" our masculinity, and will continue
to do so. I would love to be able to say "it stops here," but
I wont be that naive." Another student wrote, "The police academy
ridicules homosexuality in part because of the lack of understanding and
being afraid of being thought of being homosexual." Ten (24%) respondents
claimed to have not seen any discrimination against gays and lesbians. Education
was suggested by five (13%) respondents as a means of improving the situation.
And another five (13%) respondents claimed that the academy was not homophobic.
Interestingly, three (7%) respondents believed that, "The prejudice
imposed on gays are[sic] greatly exaggerated."
Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: This recruit class was similar to the previous
recruit classes except that it was smaller, with sixty-five (65) uniformed
recruits including 3 women and 62 men.
Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
Much of the 3 hours and 43 minutes of training is similar to the training
described in Site #7 & #8, and will not be repeated here. After the
10-minute Introduction in which I restricted my presentation to reduce
objectionable characteristics, the 23-minute video "Gay Cops"
from 60-Minutes with Mike Wallace was shown. This led directly to
the 30-minute Harassment of Gay and Lesbian Police Officers activity.
All students were actively involved and their comments suggested that their
responses to conflict would be situationally based. After a 10 -minute break,
student were asked to write questions on cards they had about homosexuality
for answering at a later time. A Stereotype Activity was conducted
for 30 minutes that was a variation on what had been used at Sites #7 &
#8 and attempted to control student responses such that negative statements
would be kept to a minimum. As usual, students had a fun time with this
activity. I then lectured on Sexual Orientation Basics for 15 minutes,
using the student comments made earlier as a guide for selecting which information
to present. Five students challenged the research as being biased and self-identified
Christian fundamentalists made their counter-points. Again, each activity
and/or lecture was supported by a 62-page booklet and overhead transparencies.
During the 15-minute break, students were engaged in the Famous Gays
and Lesbians activity. After the break, I lectured for 60 minutes on
Points-of-Contact. Twelve students made comments clarifying points
of law. Students then were asked to share their Personal Contact
they may have had with gays and lesbians. Six students shared having worked
with gays and lesbians and one student share an experience of being "hit"
upon by someone of their same sex. The question cards collected earlier
were brought out and a few were selected for comment during the 15-minute
Questions and Answers activity. Finally, I attempted closure during
the last 5-minutes of trainingtrying to tie the content of the training
back to the training goals. Also, I shared with the class that it had been
brought to my attention that often a witch hunt for gays and lesbians ensues
after I conduct a sexual orientation training. I told the students that
such a witch hunt would not be tolerated and that it was their responsibility
to intervene and stop gay-bashing.
Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Individual or small group activities were the primary instructional methodology
constituting 29% of class time. These activities were used to allow students
to explore personal views on police scenarios that contained gay and lesbian
elements. Lecture with some questions and answers was the second most used
instructional methodology. This was used 27% of the time and used to explore
point-of-contact discussion. The use of video and formal lecture were used
24% of the time. This methodology showed the gay cop video and presented
basic information on sexual orientation. Finally, instructor-led discussion
was used 20% of the time to help students understand the process of stigmatization
and closure through questions and answers.
The academic research on sexual orientation was severely reduced but did
not oversimplify into an essentialist perspective. Much more time was allocated
to presenting personal gay and lesbian police experiences and exploring
the impact homophobia has on police working conditions. Students were not
held responsible for learning the content as assessed through testing, homework
assignment or other means. Closure on topics was sporadically attempted.
Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
Although no students volunteered to be interviewed from this class and the
student evaluations were unavailable, only one respondent mentioned on the
survey of improvements for the class that he/she thought I was biased. In
contrast, a few students mentioned that they thought I was good. One student
stated, "[I] could use some help while he is teaching. Its kind of
ruff [sic] standing in front of 50 or so homophobic cadets." This is
a major change over the instructor evaluations at Sites #7 and #8.
Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
A. What stood out in their minds? (Note: Out of
65 students, 43 students responded to this question.)
Sixteen (37%) respondents thought that content
dispelling anti-gay stereotypes and issues of heterosexism were positive
experiences. Some students commented, "Positive, honesty, felt I was
told real truth," and "this was the first time I was involved
in an open discussion about homosexuals and it was good." In contrast,
five (12%) respondents disagreed with the content and "felt the presentation
was very biased," or "I was disgusted with how this training
was presented. Especially the language that was used. Contradictions of
facts." Eight (19%) of respondents felt the instructor was outstanding,
"Enjoyed his humor and realism about being gay." Finally, seven
(16%) respondents mentioned the used of the gay cop video and group activities
as being most memorable.
B. What did students want to know or were concerned
with? (Note: Out of 65 students, 53 responded to this question.)
Twenty-one (39%) students were interested in technical
information about sexual orientation. They wanted to know about the role-playing
in gay relationships, family and children issues, AIDS and discrimination.
Students wrote, "Do homosexuals feel threatened by heterosexuals,"
and "How do you feel when you are with a lover. Does the pain of intercourse
soon subside or does it last long (serious)." Even though students
were asked to write questions about homosexuality, thirteen (25%) chose
to write a negative comment instead. Eleven (21%) respondents wanted to
know about gay and lesbian politics and perspectives. For example, one
student wrote, "If you do not want to be discriminated against, why
do you find it necessary to come out?" Finally, nine (17%) respondents
were curious about the personal feelings and beliefs of the instructor.
Students wrote, "How hard is it to do this class?", "Have
you ever wanted children of your own?", and "What type of men
do you date and are you against interracial relationships?"
C. Student suggestions for improvements to the
training. (Note: Out of 65 students, 38 responded to this question.)
Twelve (32%) respondents wanted greater emphasis
given to topics of family issues, demonstrating that gays and lesbians
are normal, and police issues. Ten (26%) respondents felt that open gay
and lesbian officers needed to be present to talk about their experiences.
More total time for training was mentioned by six (16%) respondents. Four
(11%) of respondents wanted more videos, activities and teaching materials.
One student said, "the subject was presented very well. All areas
seemed to be covered. Regardless of how well the training is given, I just
dont think everyone is ready to change the values and morals."
Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
This group of recruits seemed equally anti-gay as had the previous two recruit
classes (Site #7) when comparing their written comments about personal beliefs
and agency culture; however, their classroom behavior was not as aggressive
toward the instructor. This class went much more smoothly. When students
made suggestions to improve the training, the previous two classes made
many negative statements about me and "bias" materials, while
this class praised me.
The goals for the training further shifted away from academic research on
sexual orientation and brought in police personal experiences and more time
to gain self-awareness. More time was spent on individual and small group
activities. These provided the foundation for practicing appropriate police
behaviors in situations that involved gays and lesbians.
Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with
education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
By modifying my personal information, I was viewed less antagonistically.
Although I am still not the ideal role model for this training, I attempted
to compensate by bringing in open gay and lesbian officers to assist with
the class. Unfortunately, none were available and thus the gay cop video
was used to fill this gap. The course structure attempted to start with
the harassment of gay cops as a lead-in to self-discovery about ones beliefs
and feelings surrounding gays and lesbians at work. The Stereotype Activity
and Basic Information on Sexual Orientation built upon the self-awareness
to assist students to a new level of understanding about the mechanism of
stigmatization. The Points-of-Contact lecture and activity demonstrated
appropriate police behaviors as the relevant consequence of the new knowledge.
The personal contact activity was not at the right position in the educational
sequence and should have been used earlier to personalize the discussion
of gay cops. Closure was attempted and students were not required to demonstrate
that they learned the intended content.
.c3.Participants Suggestions for Assessing the Effectiveness of Sexual
Orientation Training
Sexual orientation training is only minimally assessed by academies
and the state commission overseeing the police academies (POST). One of
the questions asked during interviews with students, instructors, program
administrators and community members was for their suggestions for assessment
strategies to determine training "effectiveness." A wide-range
of suggestions were made reflecting the difficulty in performing such assessment
and the confusion arising from differences in program goals. For example,
the academy director at Site #4 believed that their sexual orientation training
met state CAT requirements and that it sensitized officers, but whether
officers were prepared to "deal in a protected/professional manner
with all the problems they may encounter in dealing with gays and lesbian
culturewe have a lot of work to do." For lack of better ideas, this
director suggested the use of "so-called experts" to assess the
effectiveness of their training program.
Job Performance: Many interviewees took a macro-perspective of training
goals and suggested assessing the effectiveness of sexual orientation training
through the use of beat officer performance reviews in gay and lesbian communities,
feedback at community meetings, interviews of closeted gay cops, etc. All
of these suggestions were related to how officers perform on the job. A
gay male city prosecutor believed that job performance is imperative since,
"assessing in class does not get accurate information . . . [it is
more important to know if] they use the information in the field."
Longitudinal Study: Similar to the job performance macro-perspective, most
training sites suggested a longitudinal study of students, administrators
and the community. As one 23-year veteran male instructor stated,
training has occurred when performance has improved.
In CAT, there is a difference between training and education. Training
can be quantified to performance and behavior. Education, you dont know
what they have learned. I think CAT should expect a certain level of performance
that is the same as behavior." To evaluate these changes, "we
need feedback from the field to see how effective the training, but that
never occurs. I dont know of any agency that communicates between training
and FTO. I know it is a fact that FTO still tell probs that everything
they learned in the academy is wrong and that now they will learn real
police work.
Formal Assessment Strategies: Many respondents believed that some form of
formal testing could help assess the effectiveness of sexual orientation
training. Often this suggestion was combined with suggestions for assigning
homework and student interviews to get "feed-back" on the training.
All training sites had students complete some short evaluation form and/or
completing the state required multiple-choice evaluation form at the end
of the entire cultural awareness training program. Informally known as "evals,"
a conflict over their appropriateness emerged from the interviews. For example,
at Site #5, some respondents favored the current evaluation forms because
"they are honest because they are anonymous." Consequently this
trainer believed the training was effective because "the evals are
very positive. I dont recall a negative assessment," and "the
gay and lesbian training shines above the others, even though we are the
most controversial." However, the person who has conducted the most
training at Site #5 revealed that there have been many negative evaluations
with some recruits stating that "they believed the training is bogus
and that more time should be spent on tactics." Thus, a conflict seems
to exist between instructors perceptions at the same site over the accuracy
and appropriateness of formal assessment. Similarly, Site #6 instructors
acknowledged that "evals" are not considered accurate because
"many people fill them out haphazardly." Overall, most respondents
mentioned wanting to create some kind of test that could be used at the
end of the training or in a pre-/post-test analysis.
.c3.Program Suggestions Made by Interviewees
Interviewees were asked for their suggestions toward improving sexual
orientation training. Although many of the comments were directed at their
own programs, there were general comments applicable to all.
Methods: A program consultant at Site #1 best summed up the comments made
by most respondents. She suggested that a "multitude of teaching/learning
approaches that are meaningful and credible to police [should be used] and
recognize the fact that everyone learns differently." To that end,
the academy director at Site #4 suggested more problem solving exercises
that emphasized actual behaviors more than "just sensitizing them to
cultural difference." Other respondents wanted more video tape presentations
where officers shared their work related experiences. Role-playing activities
and situational simulations were suggested by many respondents, yet one
gay officer at Site #6 refined that position and suggested that "small
groups and collectively attaining closure" would be important. Similarly,
the academy director at Site #7 wanted more time allocated for interactives
allowing students to discover their own positions, and more time for police
scenarios. In terms of the instructional style, the Dean at Site #7 believed
his academys sexual orientation training is the "most definitive .
. most formalized . . . [and] most extensive," but that the instructor
needs to take a more "even-handed approach," and try not to "convert"
students since there "is very little [accurate] research" on homosexuality.
Time Allotment: Without exception, the sites that conducted approximately
two hours of sexual orientation training felt that the time allocation was
far too short. For example, instructors of Site #2 stated, "Two hours
is inappropriate because not everyone can be engaged. The minimum is 4 hours."
Those sites conducting approximately 4 hours of training on sexual orientation
believed this to be sufficient time. One instructor at Site #5 related,
"I can pretty much cover it all in 3 1/2 hours and I start to run out
of things to say."
Class Size: At the training sites with class size approaching 100 students,
instructors reported that "much smaller classes are neededat least
in half or one-third." Even at the training sites with smaller classes,
many instructors desired "limiting class size to 20," and as one
academy dean believed, "smaller classes help to facilitate question
and answer activities and problem solving exercises."
Materials: Many respondents mentioned that they wished they had more information
and literature with handouts. Half of the interviewees further stated that
they would like short videos demonstrating "appropriate" police
conduct during points-of-contact with the gay and lesbian community. Only
at Site #7, where a 75-page booklet was distributed to students, did the
instructor and program administrator suggest a reduction in handout materials.
Trainers/Instructors: An openly gay sergeant at Site #5 expressed his belief
about who makes the ideal instructor,
I think we do a really good job. Most important
is having good open gay and lesbian officers. Having marginal, cry-baby
officers gives a bad taste. NY Charlie Cocrahn was great and when he came
out, everyone was impressed and accepted his homosexuality. Civilians can
do a good job, but if they dont know how to work with officers they will
fail. I work the first 10 min. by showing that I am one of them. It is
terrible to have an anti-police instructor. It is important to have non-stereotypical
officers to teach. Dont use earring-out fags or bulldyke instructors. Many
gay cops who have problems most often bring it on themselves. It becomes
a game. As soon as cops smell blood, they come in for the kill.
Most of the interviewees felt that the instructors
must be gay or lesbian and preferably active police officers. At the sites
where only one instructor was used, respondents often suggested having more
than one instructor and persons of different genders, race, and ethnicity
representing "greater diversity other than just one white male."
Other suggestions: A number of respondents suggested a simple solution to
improving the status for gays and lesbians in the police agencymore open
gay and lesbian officers. Three sites suggested having students engage in
service with gay and lesbian organizations. A common suggestion was to expand
training to all personnel, not just recruits. A non-police gay male instructor
took a more radical position regarding improvements of conditions for gay
and lesbian officers:
The biggest stumbling block is religion. These
are political businesses that seek to perpetuate themselves by heterosexual
reproduction and they are the cause of war. I think a lot of police officers
are conformist and subsequently religious. Even though it is a paramilitary
command structure, if they hired people who thought for themselves, diversity
issues would tend to fade because of the creativity of the workforce. The
problem within the gay and lesbian community and the department is trying
to be too PC that is how it got started. Taking the PC road may or may
not work. Officers coming out is most important thing.
One area that is often overlooked is the issue of holding students responsible
for learning the materials. Currently, no testing is conducted on sexual
orientation content. A 27-year police veteran commented, "In all the
CAT, is there any testing? People say you cant test, yet we should be tested.
It does not have to be minority specific, but how they are discriminated
against." Thus, testing on sexual orientation was suggested. The CAT
program consultant at Site #6 took an organizational approach and suggested
that "diversity must become an organizational value and training is
only one component. Diversity needs to be treated as more than just a program,
but it must show up in performance evaluations, and day-to-day operation
decisions." Finally, a few individuals suggested more time to prepare
lessons, more technology to make it more fun, a train-the-trainers program,
having cops walking beats in the gay and lesbian community, training the
entire city personnel, money for materials, money to pay for professional
instructors, a professional staff member for sexual orientation training,
and taking students to the community.
.c3.What Forces Contribute Most to the Acceptance of Gays and Lesbians?
During interview, subjects were asked to identify and prioritize the factors
contributing to a gay supportive work environment. Four major factors were
identifiedsexual orientation training, administration support, open gay
and lesbian officers, and community pressure. Respondents were almost unanimous
in stating that community pressure was the least effective and only caused
"resentment." However, one community activists countered, "Without
pressure from the gay and lesbian community, none of this would have ever
happened. It may be distasteful, but it opens doors and changes policies."
Respondents were equally split over sexual orientation training, administration
support and having open gay and lesbian officers as being the more important.
Some respondents severely resisted prioritizing the factors and emphasized
that all must act concurrently in order to affect a gay supportive work
environment. As the program director at Site #7 stated, "each must
occur concurrently and that it is personal experiences" that have the
greatest impact.
.c3."Appropriate" Police Behaviors in Gay and Lesbian Scenarios
One goal of this research was to reach a consensus on "appropriate"
police behavior in gay and lesbian situations. Three scenarios were paraphrased
from the behavioral assessment instrument designed for this research (describe
in Chapter 3) and presented to interviewees for their suggestions. The three
scenarios represent the most common interactions police personnel experience
while on the job that involve gays and lesbians.
Scenario #1: After many years of working with
a partner you enjoy and respect, he/she share with you that he/she is gay/lesbian.
You are told this in the strictest confidence. What would you say and do?
Gay and lesbian police officers gave fairly similar
responses. One lesbian officer/instructor at Site #1 summed it best when
she said, "the officer should keep the information confidential, feel
pride that he/she trusted them enough to share the deeply personal information,
to accept graciously, and encourage the gay/lesbian officer to come out
to other personnel." A gay male officer at Site #5 emphasized that
the officer should feel "flattered" that the person shared the
information. The two heterosexual instructors at Site #2 felt that the partner
should recognize that coming out is a sign of trust, and similarly suggested
that the officer respond with a statement such as, "Thats interesting
and I feel honored that you shared with me and Ill keep the confidence."
They further suggested that the officer ask many questions to demonstrate
his/her genuine interest. In contrast, most heterosexual officers and administrators
responded differently. For example, the heterosexual officers at Site #6
uniformly responded with "So!" and the male heterosexual diversity
administrator added, "Keep it confidential because it is not an illegal
act." The Dean at Site #7 likewise suggested that the officer "not
do anything" and that "it changes nothing." Finally, community
members at Site #6 expressed a desire for much more compassion and showing
interest besides just keeping it confidential. One of the more unique answers
to this question was from the CAT program consultant at Site #6. She believed
that since the scenario stated the officers had been partners for a long
time, then the receiving officer should "apologize for not creating
an environment that was safe for them to share."
Scenario #2: You arrive at a domestic argument
between two women. Both are angry, yelling and look disheveled. What would
you say and do?
Most all respondents agreed that the women should first be separated, clamed,
interviewed without bias, determine if a crime was committed, and make the
appropriate arrest or referral. The heterosexual instructor at Site #2 who
is a doctoral candidate in educational psychology, suggested that the women
be separated and seated since this will help them change their behavior,
and have them write with pencil on paper so as to help them "refocus
and to go from emotional state to cognitive state." Many of the respondents
felt it was important to establish the relationship between the women. For
example, one administrator at Site #4 felt it was necessary to "find
out if they are a couple for our safety because they are more likely to
lash out at us if they are a couple." Similarly, the gay male city
prosecutor at Site #6 wanted officers to remember, "Caution, they will
kill me as easily as in a heterosexual situation . . . we are not social
workers, if something goes wrong, we become liable." It was the lesbian
respondents who emphasized that the relationship between the women should
not be assumed and that the investigating officers need to ask the status
of the relationship. Furthermore, one lesbian officer at Site #5 said that
if they suspected the women were lesbian lovers and unwilling to open up
about their relationship, she "would open up to them to make them feel
at ease."
Scenario #3: Two men have been badly beaten in
a park by a gang of young adult males. This park is known for being a gay
cruise spot. While interviewing the men at the scene, what would you say
and do?
This scenario revealed much confusion about proper
police procedures when dealing with a potential hate crime. Most respondents
felt that medical assistance needed to be called first and that the victims
needed to be handled with sensitivity. However, deciding whether to inquire
about the victims sexual orientation or the legal process involved in reporting
a hate crime confused many police personnel. For example, the administrators
at Site #4 and instructors at Site #2 believed that officers should ask
the men if any negative statements were made. If the men were suspected
of being gay, the investigating officers should continue pressing them about
what words were said, and if need be, ask the men if they were gay explaining
the need to file a potential hate crime report. Similarly, about half of
the gay and lesbian instructors of Site #5 and Site #1 wanted to ask if
the victims were gay or if they knew they were in a gay cruise spot. However,
the other half of the gay and lesbian instructors and officers felt that
it was not necessary to ask the victims sexual orientation directly and
instead "engineer this so they dont have to come out." Similarly,
many respondents would ask the victims if they thought the attack was motivated
by hate while other respondents said they would only ask if derogatory words
were used during the attack since it is the responsibility of the police
officer to file the hate crime report. Finally, most of the respondents
would "assure them [victims] that the issue would be taken seriously."
The gay male city prosecutor of Site #6 wanted the officers to "not
blame the victim . . . [and not say] what the fuck are you doing down here."
.c2.Section 2 Instrumental Empirical Research
Instrumental empirical testing was used as an attempt to quantify changes
in student attitudes, feelings, knowledge, identities and behaviors on sexual
orientation resulting from cultural awareness training (CAT) focusing on
sexual orientation information. Likewise, instrumental empirical testing
of instructors, program administrators and community members was conducted
to quantify the level of homophobia surrounding the training. Appendix E
presents comprehensive tables of statistical data for each of the training
sites. This section will discuss the major trends observed in the instrumental
empirical data.
The empirical testing instrument is described in detail in Chapter 3. Succinctly,
the Police Empirical Research Questionnaire (PERQ) was a one-hundred
question survey comprised of 6 different sections. Part 1 used the Modified
Attitude Towards Homosexuality (MATH) (Price, 1982; MacDonald, Jr.,
et al., 1973) to assess student attitudes and beliefs toward homosexuality.
Part 2 used the Index of Homophobia (IHP) (Hudson & Rickets,
1980) to assess student feelings toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Part
3 used the Homosexuality Knowledge Index (HKI) (Sears, 1991) to assess
student knowledge about homosexuality. Part 4 was newly created for this
research and used the Shively and De Cecco theories on gender-sexual-emotional
identity to assess student understanding about changes in these identities
(identified as Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, Emotional Identity,
Stewart 1994). Part 5 used the 4-Item F Scale (Lane, 1955) to assess
student beliefs on authoritarianism. Part 6, was created for this research
to assess student behavioral response to police situations where homosexuality
had a component (Police Behavioral Scenarios on Homosexuality, Stewart
1994). Scoring of these tests indicated that homophobic responses gave a
low score and gay-affirming responses yielded a high score. These scores
were normalized on a hundred point scale with 0 being completely homophobic
and 100 being totally gay-affirming.
Part 4 of the PERQ caused much controversy (see discussion earlier in this
chapter). Some agencies thought that asking questions about current and
future gender-sexual-emotional identities was too personal. The intent of
the questionnaire was to see if students shifted away from an exclusively
heterosexual or exclusively homosexual identity, and toward a more complex
identity as they received information about the social construction of sexuality.
But because of the continuing controversy, only the question about current
sexual orientation was kept and used to differentiate responses between
heterosexual and homosexual respondents. Also, data collected from the 4-Item
F Scale was ultimately deemed not necessary for this study and was discarded.
There are many caveats concerning the research data:
1. Students: (a). The PERQ was distributed to
students for pre-testing days, sometimes months in advance to training.
Thus, students at each site had potential environmental influences and
histories that are not equal. (b). After taking the PERQ the first time,
students were asked to hold onto the test materials. After training, students
were asked to turn the answer sheet over and take the PERQ a second time.
This was done so tracking of individual responses was possible and the
stronger Pooled T-test statistical method could be used for analysis. However,
one agency in particular had four times as many students take only the
pre-test and not the post-test. For some reason, student participation
varied significantly. (c). Not all students participated. In some academies,
85% of students participated in pre-/post-testing, while in others it was
only 3%. Thus, participation in testing was very self-selective. Since
virtually no students volunteered to be interviewed, there are significant
questions about the factors determining student participation. (d) Are
the responses honest? There are many indicators that some students were
not honest in their responses. First, the training was highly controversial
and many students were disrespectful of the instructor, researcher and/or
the material. Second, since students held onto the materials for a number
of days, it is possible that they could have changed answers. Third, at
two academies where the post-test was completed in class, a few students
were observed copying their answers from the front side of the answer sheet
(pre-test) on to the back side of the answer sheet (post-test). A review
of data revealed a small number of students whose pre- and post-tests were
identical. This is virtually impossible, but the responses were not discarded
from the data analysis. Fourth, phone calls from panic stricken gay and
lesbian students indicated that they would not participate in the questionnaires
out of fear of being identified by their fellow students.
2. Police Personnel and Community Members: These
persons were vested in cultural awareness training and not representative
of their communities. Again, only half of the persons asked to complete
the PERQ did so. Thus, the responses from these persons are highly selective.
Students Attending Sexual Orientation Training Responses
Table 4.2 presents the median pre-/post-test scores for heterosexual students
who attended sexual orientation training. The only test that reported statistically
significant changes in pre-/post-scores was Part 2Feelings about Homosexuals
(IHP). Site #1 and Site #9 saw student feelings toward gays and lesbians
become more positive after training, whereas two other sitesSite #2 and
Site #6reported student feelings becoming more negative after training.
Are there educational commonalties to explain these trends? Site #1 training
used a video and panel made up of gay and lesbian police personnel from
the agency. Site #9 training was a highly structured workshop with many
individual and group activities taught by a gay academic/activist. Site
#2 training was a teacher-led inquiry into student feelings and taught by
a heterosexual police educator with clear religious overtones. Site #6 training
consisted primarily of a panel of civilian gays and lesbians with some direct
instruction on appropriate police behaviors. Thus, the reasons associated
with the measured changes in feelings toward gays and lesbians seemed unclear
and possibly not related to educational methodology.
In Appendix E, estimates based on qualitative and empirical evidence are
made about the levels of homophobia expressed at each training site. The
term "homophobia" is used broadly and incorporates more than just
the fear of being in close proximity to homosexuals, but is used to incorporate
all anti-gay sentiments, beliefs and behaviors. Site #4 was estimated to
have the lowest levels of homophobia, followed by Site #1. The remaining
five sitesSite #2, Site #3, Site #6, Site #7, and Site #9seemed similar
in their high levels of homophobia. Heterosexual students from the academy
with the least homophobic environments (Site #4) also scored much higher
(less homophobic) on virtually all tests. Heterosexual students from the
agency with the second least homophobic environment (Site #1) scored approximately
second highest (less homophobic) on most tests. Students at the five academies
with the highest levels of homophobia (Site #2, Site #3, Site #6, Site #7,
and Site #9) scored similar low scores (high homophobia). Although formal
correlation analysis was not conducted between agencies, it appears that
heterosexual students in gay friendly environments reflect those values
by scoring lower levels of homophobia (high scores). Conversely, heterosexual
students in anti-gay environments, scored much higher levels of homophobia
(low score).
.c4.Table 4.2
Pre- and Post-Test Mean PERQ Scores of
Heterosexual Students Attending Sexual Orientation Training
student type
class count
# respondents |
Site #1
service
17
13 |
Site #2
recruits
43
34 |
Site #3
recruits
39
28 |
Site #4
recruits
30
6 |
Site #5
recruits
45 |
Site #6
recruits
105
3 |
Site #7
recruits
94
28 |
Site #9
recruits
65
55 |
| Part 1 Attitudes |
65.9/
68.7 |
56.4/
52.8 |
51.2/
52.6 |
78.0 |
67.3/
72.3 |
56.3/
54.9 |
58.7/
56.6 | |
| Part 2 Feelings |
51.2/
57.6* 1 |
42.4/
37.2* 2 |
36.7/
35.9 |
60.6 |
58.8/
56.7* 3 |
37.2
35.7 |
41.6/
43.9* 4 | |
| Part 3 Knowledge |
63.5/
67.8 |
66.5/
61.2 |
67.2/
67.9 |
79.2 |
75.0/
77.1 |
67.4/
65.4 |
65.0/
63.1 | |
| Part 6 Scenarios |
78.7/
78.1 |
75.1/
75.1 |
78.0/
77.5 |
76.9 |
84.6/
79.5 |
76.9/
80.2 |
74.0/
71.2 |
.c4.Table 4.3
Pre- and Post-Test PERQ Scores of
Homosexual Students Attending Sexual Orientation Training
student type
class count
# respondents |
Site #1
service
17
1 |
Site #2
recruits
43 |
Site #3
recruits
39 |
Site #4
recruits
30
1 |
Site #5
recruits
45 |
Site #6
recruits
105 |
Site #7
recruits
94 |
Site #9
recruits
65
2
(mean) |
| Part 1 Attitudes |
86.6/
89.3 |
92.0 |
64.3/
61.6 | |||||
| Part 2 Feelings |
90.0/
83.8 |
93.8 |
48.8/
48.8 | |||||
| Part 3 Knowledge |
75.0/
93.8 |
81.3 |
71.9/
71.9 | |||||
| Part 6 Scenarios |
84.6/
84.6 |
69.2 |
92.3/
88.4 |
.c4.Table 4.4
PERQ Scores of
Heterosexual Police Officers and Administrators
Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training
# respondents |
Site #1
2
(mean) |
Site #2 |
Site #3 |
Site #4
1 |
Site #5
1* |
Site #6
2
(mean) |
Site #7 |
Site #9 |
| Part 1 Attitudes |
80.8 |
89.3 |
94.6 |
46.0 |
||||
| Part 2 Feelings |
66.9 |
66.3 |
98.8 |
28.8 |
||||
| Part 3 Knowledge |
84.4 |
81.3 |
93.8 |
62.5 |
||||
| Part 6 Scenarios |
80.8 |
76.9 |
92.3 |
80.8 |
.c4.Table 4.5
PERQ Scores of
Homosexual Police Officers
Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training
# respondents |
Site #1
4*
(mean) |
Site #2 |
Site #3 |
Site #4 |
Site #5
2*
(mean) |
Site #6
2*
(mean) |
Site #7 |
Site #9 |
| Part 1 Attitudes |
92.4 |
95.5 |
92.4 |
|||||
| Part 2 Feelings |
90.6 |
92.5 |
90.0 |
|||||
| Part 3 Knowledge |
89.1 |
100 |
93.8 |
|||||
| Part 6 Scenarios |
90.4 |
84.6 |
96.2 |
.c4.Table 4.6
PERQ Scores of
Heterosexual Community Members
Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training
# respondents |
Site #1
2* 1
(mean) |
Site #2 |
Site #3 |
Site #4 |
Site #5 |
Site #6
1* 2 |
Site #7 |
Site #9 |
| Part 1 Attitudes |
75.5 |
89.3 |
||||||
| Part 2 Feelings |
68.8 |
91.3 |
||||||
| Part 3 Knowledge |
75.0 |
93.8 |
||||||
| Part 6 Scenarios |
84.6 |
76.9 |
.c4.Table 4.7
PERQ Scores of
Homosexual Community Members
Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training
# respondents |
Site #1
3
(mean) |
Site #2 |
Site #3 |
Site #4 |
Site #5
1* |
Site #6
4*
(mean) |
Site #7 |
Site #9 |
| Part 1 Attitudes |
89.3 |
90.2 |
95.3 |
|||||
| Part 2 Feelings |
92.5 |
96.3 |
97.5 |
|||||
| Part 3 Knowledge |
77.1 |
100 |
92.2 |
|||||
| Part 6 Scenarios |
82.1 |
100 |
98.1 |