Chuck Stewart, Ph.D.

 

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

 

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARIES, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

.c2.Summaries

Nine different sexual orientation trainings were observed and data collected. Two of the training sites were basic academies associated with large metropolitan police departments. Four of the training sites were basic academies connected to California Community Colleges and served local police agencies. Police recruits made up the student population at all but one of the observed basic academy classesthe other class being an in-service for police administrators. One training site was an In-Service program for all personnel within a small police department.
Training observations were analyzed using psycholinguistic/humanistic education theory (see Appendix D). Interviews with students, instructors, program administrators, and gay and lesbian community activists used the Overt-Institutional-Societal model of homophobia to assess the culture in which sexual orientation training was conducted. Interviews were also used to gather data on appropriate police behaviors in situations that had gay and/or lesbian components. Empirical testing was conducted on students to assess changes in attitudes, feelings, knowledge, identities, and behaviors concerning homosexuality. The same empirical testing was conducted with some of the other interviewees. Out of 438 students who were observed, 167 completed pre-/post-testing and 6 participated in interviews. Twenty-two instructors/panel members, 10 program administrators, and 18 community members were also interviewed. Approximately half of the interviewees completed the instrumental tests.

2. (HPD)A panel of police personnel (5 gay and lesbian officers) was used at Site #1. Here, the instructors, length of training (almost 2 1/2 hours) and class size (17) were good. Lecture, and limited questions and answers activity represented 100% of training time. No individual or small group activities were used. Showing the video, "Growing Up Gay" assisted in demonstrating homophobia and the effect it has on gays and lesbians. However, allowing content to emerge primarily from panel members sharing stories, reduced training effectiveness so much that this site rated in the lower half of observed training methodologies. Instructors presented an essentialist sexual orientation perspective. With 76% of the class participating in the instrumental research, three of the tests indicated moderately low levels of homophobia. Only Part 2 Feelings toward gays and lesbian instrumental test was statistically significant and showed a positive (less homophobic) change of approximately 10%. Caution: this was a very small class and these conclusions are based on just 13 responses. Administration makes strong statements supporting sexual orientation training, but does not take a proactive approach to including gays and lesbians in the agency and took a deficit perspective on homosexuality. Interviews with students and police personnel indicated that gays and lesbians are conditionally accepted by the agency. Lesbians were fairly accepted while gay men were not. Overall, the agencys panel members were excellent, training methodologies and content were lacking, the agency appears to conditionally support sexual orientation training, and instrumental testing was unrevealing for most measures except that feelings toward gays and lesbians improved slightly.

1. Only one instructor used this method at Sites #2 and #3(FPD,COS). The instructor was a respected heterosexual officer/educator of limited expertise on homosexuality and subsequently was a good, but not excellent choice, for training instructor. The length of training (almost 2 1/2 hours) and class size (43 students) also were not ideal. Lecture, and questions and answers activity consumed 100% of training time. No individual or small group activities were used. By allowing content to emerge from student concerns, combined with lack of expertise on the content, the training at this site was rated next to last in educational effectiveness. Because the instructor took time out of class to administer instrumental testing, 72 to 79% of students participated which revealed appalling high levels of homophobia in the classes. Student comments and written responses about gays and lesbians were vicious. Only at one site was empirical testing significant on Part 2Feelings toward gays and lesbians which reflected students becoming more anti-gay (by almost 14%) at the conclusion of training. There were no open gay or lesbian recruits or staff members at the academy. The instructors took a deficit perspective regarding homosexuality. Overall, the training conditions were not good, the instructor was a fair but not an excellent choice, content failed to be addressed from the Open Dialogue Method, feelings toward gays and lesbians worsened, empirical testing was mostly unrevealing and the exceedingly high levels of homophobia and deficit perspective impacted the agencys support of sexual orientation training.

3. (RIO)I taught three different sexual orientation trainings at one site (referred to as Sites #7, #8, #9). Each time the course was taught, various elements of the content and methodologies were varied. Although I was almost the worst candidate for instructing in law enforcement environments, by modifying my personal presentation I was able to improve my acceptance by students. The length of training was almost four hours and ideal, but class sizes were horrendous (up to 94 students) with poor classroom conditions. Yet, by evolving the curriculum to come in line with educational theory, the instructional methodologies and content became very effective rating in the top of the observed sites. I used many individual and small group activities (up to 29% of class time) to involve students in self-awareness, overcoming stereotypes, and solving problems, and distributed an 85-page booklet of information. The biggest drawback of the training was the lack of lesbian and gay police officers to share their stories and the inappropriateness of the instructor. The two recruit classes were moderate to highly homophobic as expressed in interview, written comments, instrumental testing and classroom behavior. The in-service class of police administrators was not as homophobic. The last class (the one that complied closest to education theory), recorded a statistically significant improvement (approximately 5%) in student feelings toward gays and lesbians. Other instrumental measures were unrevealing about training effectiveness. Academy administrators supported sexual orientation training and fought political battles to hire the instructor, but the administration viewed homosexuality as a deficit and was unaware of any open gay or lesbian personnel. Overall, I was able to overcome many of my role-model deficits through manipulation of my presence. Instruction methodologies conformed closer to education theory with each subsequent class, and therefore became more effective. The academy culture was very homophobic and recruits reflected that homophobia.

.c2.Research Questions Reviewed

In Chapter 1, five research questions were presented. This section will address each one and present the research findings.
Issue #1 Training and Program Goals: Training on sexual orientation is occurring because gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transvestites are fighting to overcome their stigmatization and oppression caused by a heterosexist and homophobic society. Educational approaches to overcoming stigmatization require instructional goals stated in both behavioral and attitudinal domains and designed to maximize the interaction of gay-positive attitudes and behaviors within a meaningful exchange. This means that organizational goals need to support anti-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation, making the work environment safe and supportive for all employees, and improving relations with all customers. Training goals support the organizational goals through: (1) informing students about the organizations anti-discrimination policies, (2) facilitating self-awareness so students can evaluate their compliance to the organizations goals, (3) providing accurate information on homosexuality and societys stigmatization of gays and lesbians to assist students in replacing negative feelings, attitudes and behaviors with gay-affirming feelings, attitudes and behaviors, and (4) engaging students in developing strategies for overcoming homophobic and heterosexist behaviors found in the work place.
Interviews with instructors, program administrators, students, and gay and lesbian civilians revealed that training and programs goals were often vague. When comparing interviewee responses with the four training goals presented in the previous paragraph, most respondents wanted sexual orientation training to "sensitize," obtain greater "acceptance," "present gays and lesbians in a more positive light," show that gays and lesbians are "normal, not sick, are not pedophiles, do not recruit," eliminate "myths and stereotypes," and show that sexual orientation is "not a choice." All these goals fall within the realm of goal #3 (providing accurate information to dispel myths and change attitudes). Only three interviewees mentioned "equal treatment" (goal #1), two mentioned "self-awareness" (goal #2), and two mentioned that employee safety (goal #4) were appropriate goals. Thus, most police personnel and training instructors are unclear about how training goals reflect back to the anti-discrimination policies of the police agency or academy, and fail to tie homophobia and heterosexism with racism, sexism and stigmatization.
Training observations confirmed the confusion most training sites had about sexual orientation goals. Only the Structured Methods attempted to cover all four training goals. Even then, most of the Structured Methods emphasized self-awareness or accurate information. One training site engaged students in solving problems and developing strategies. Educational analysis showed that trainings which attempted to address all four training goals were more effective.
Without exception, every training instructor announced to the class that they were not there to "change your values or beliefs" but instead, to give information that will "make you better professionals." The training attempts to change behaviors and attitudes regardless of the instructors pronouncements. In Chapter 2 it was shown that both behaviors and attitudes reinforce and change concurrently, that it is impossible to change only one, and that this is what is sought in sexual orientation training. However, it is necessary to recognize that every instructor felt the need to make such pronouncements to reduce student resistance to participating in training.
Issue #2 Training Assessments: Assessing levels of homophobia and gay attacks in the community does not give a direct measure of training effectiveness since many other factors are influential. Similarly, assessing levels of homophobia in police agencies are not directly related to training effectiveness. Instrumental assessment of training effectiveness (pre- and post-testing of student attitudes, feelings, knowledge and behaviors about homosexuals and homosexuality) proved to be mostly unrevealing (see Appendix E). The failure to detect change may have resulted from student lying, a selective subpopulation of students who did participate, and/or many other factors. Only the Index of Homophobia (feeling toward homosexuals) showed statistical significance for a number of training sites. The primary methodology used to assess training effectiveness was classroom observations using education theory.
One assessment instrument asked students what they remembered about the training. If the speaker was dynamic, that is what they remembered. If a particular video or activity was engaging whether positively or negatively that is what they remembered. Asking this kind of question was unrevealing about the effectiveness of program subtleties. Interestingly, from 10 to 15% of students had a compelling need to make negative comments about homosexuality, even though this question did not request such comments.
"Evals," as students refer to the evaluation forms they often complete after attending cultural awareness trainings, provide an assessment on how well the student liked the class and instructor, but is not an assessment of training effectiveness. It is important for students to respect and enjoy the instructor and class. Negative evaluations should not automatically conclude that training was ineffective, but rather a different balance needed to be met in finding appropriate instructors and instructional methodologies.
Issue #3 Influence of Police Culture on Training Effectiveness: The police culture toward gays and lesbians had a significant influence. From the very beginning when recruits were selected to attend the academy, the attitudes and feelings police administrators held about homosexuality were reflected in the attitudes and feelings held by recruits. Instrumental testing revealed that if an overall agency was gay-affirming then both administrators and their recruits would score more gay-positive than in a gay-negative environment and vice versa. This suggests that recruits reflect their academy administrators and administrators select students who reflect their own values.
Only one training site could have been classified as virtually non-homophobic. They had many open gay and lesbian officers, and open gay and lesbian administrators. Training devoted a large chunk of the entire cultural awareness program to sexual orientation and made anti-discrimination an important value within the police organization. All other training sites measured moderate to high levels of homophobia. At these homophobic sites, gay male officers were never accepted and it was believed "dangerous" for them to come out. Lesbian officers, if tolerated, were accepted reluctantly. Furthermore, program administrators at these homophobic sites felt that sexual orientation training was important but held deficit positions about homosexuality. Sexual orientation training was presented as a separate module and perceived to be unrelated to police work. Even if the training was excellent, the homophobic police culture prevented gay-affirming values to permeate the organization.
Bringing in an outside panel of gay and lesbian community activists was the least effective training. This is not surprising since it reflects the academies non-commitment to overcoming homophobia. It is simple to go out and get gays and lesbians to come talk to the academy, but it is much harder to develop gay and lesbian officers capable of conducting sexual orientation training. If a law enforcement organization is vested in overcoming homophobia, it must make the effort to provide an environment safe enough for officers to come out, and also to participate in sexual orientation training.

f. Students need to be involved in developing strategies for overcoming homophobia.

5. Many interviewees expressed their concerns that sexual orientation training is almost exclusively reserved for recruit training. If law enforcement organizations value this training, then all personnel should attend.
Students were asked to make suggestions for improving the sexual orientation training. Predominately, students (and administrators during interview) wanted a diverse team of instructors comprised of open gay and lesbian officers. More time, more activities, more videos and more information primarily on gay and lesbian family relationships were also suggested. Approximately 10% of all responses wanted the "other side" of the issues presented, specifically to hear from "ex-gays" and about reparative therapies.
Issue #5 Police Behaviors: One major goal stated for sexual orientation training is to modify police behaviors to be more respectful of gays and lesbians. To ascertain what these behaviors should be, three different gay and lesbian scenarios were presented to interviewees and they were asked what behaviors should be manifest by police officers. There were two lines of responses reported by interviewees. Most police administrators, heterosexual employees and students made very few suggestions and often stated, "Treat them just like everyone else." In contrast, most gay and lesbian interviewees, police administrators vested in organizational change, and all instructors, gave elaborated answers pointing out the influence a gay or lesbian component has on police behavior.

3. When responding to a suspected gay bashing in the park (a) obtain medical services if needed, (b) conduct an interview asking for details of what happened and descriptions of assailants, (c) about half of the interviewees felt it was necessary to ask the men if they were gay, while other interviewees said the mens sexual orientation was immaterial because the law cared only about what derogatory language, if any, was used during the attack, (d) ask what was said by the assailants, (e) inform the victims of the hate crime laws, (f) it should be reported as a hate crime if either the officer suspects that the attack was motivated by hate or the victims requests that the report be filed as a hate crime, and (g) reassure the victims that the crime will be taken seriously and to not blame the victim. A few gay and lesbian officers stated that they would try to engineer the investigation such that the victims do not have to come out gay or lesbian, and that if the victims or witnesses seemed hesitant to talk, then the gay or lesbian officer would come out to them to secure their confidence.
Cultural awareness program administrators and sexual orientation training instructors need to be aware of the reticent heterosexual officers and most recruits have toward recognizing the unique behavioral requirements needed during police interactions with gays and lesbians. The elaborated responses by the gay and lesbian respondents revealed a greater depth of understanding that needs to be explored during sexual orientation training.

.c2.Conclusions

This research is the first formalized evaluation on the effectiveness of sexual orientation training. More than anything, this project points out the need for observations, and willingness to learn different methods to teach this controversial subject. Some of the training was effective and reflected the efforts made by the academy or agency to provide the best possible training. Even in the worst training, there were potential elements of effectiveness to learnan effective activity, a good handout, a particular perspective, etc. Hopefully, more research will be conducted to find those nuggets of effectiveness so that others may improve their efforts.
One of the recurring themes made by law enforcement administrators was that "there are no problems" regarding discrimination against gays and lesbians since they have not heard of any complaints. When these administrators were asked if there were any open gay or lesbian personnel in their agency, often they would indicate they suspected there might be, or that it was common knowledge a particular person was, but they themselves had never spoken with that person on the subject. In reality, the "suspected" homosexual was not being accepted, otherwise the administrators would have known much more about his or her personal life and would have socialized in ways that would have allowed the "suspected" homosexual to be open. By not "seeing" the problem, they wrongfully assumed there was no problem. This "blind eye" to the agencys homophobia and heterosexism, and the all too common deficit beliefs about homosexuality, permeated the agency and negatively impacted the sexual orientation training.
One of the more surprising and disturbing findings of this research is the level of self-deception found among training instructors and program administrators concerning their cultural awareness training program. Every agency and instructor interviewed believed that their cultural awareness training program was far superior than anyone elsesthat their cultural awareness training program was the best and "light-years" ahead of the rest. Yet, none of these persons ever observed training conducted by other agencies or instructors. In fact, until I went from academy to academy to observe sexual orientation training, no one from California POST had ever formally observed the cultural awareness trainings conducted at the academies. POST does not field audit the very cultural awareness training it mandates. Yet these people believed that not only were they doing a good job, but that they were leaders in the fielda field they had not researched. As detailed in Chapter 4 and Appendix D, some of the sexual orientation trainings were fairly effective reaching maybe 70% of their potential. Other trainings were dismal and violated most of the elements of effective instruction. Obviously the pride they hold about their programs is usurping their motivation to improve their programs.
Students were not generally involved and vested in sexual orientation training. Lecture, passive video watching and limited interactions with instructors or panel members consumed most of training timeand for most academies virtually 100% of the time. Individual and small group activities were rarely used. Problem solving on police scenarios in which homosexuality played an important component was rarely used. Furthermore, students were not held accountable for participating in the class or demonstrating they had learned the content. Although testing in the academy occurs for most other knowledge domains, cultural awareness and sexual orientation were not testedwhich sends the message to students that this kind of knowledge is not important to police work.
The lack of testing for content presented at sexual orientation training is just one of many examples of structural deficits in the entire law enforcement training program of California. It was reported that officers are not tracked during their careers from the academy, to field training, and then on the job. Similarly, there is no communication among these three levels of training regarding officer performance. Correlating student training performance with field training performance and job performance would provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness of training programs. Without these feedback loops, improving the effectiveness of training programs is virtually impossible.
How important is it to involve students? Let me relate one of the more memorable interviews I conducted while on a ride-along. For approximately 4 hours, I rode in a police car on patrol with a male officer. Invariably he told me his life story and opinions about policing, gays and lesbians, and life. This officer was an extremely macho heterosexual ex-Navy seal who prepared daily for tri-athlete competition. He recognized that his physical training was limiting his time spent with his wife, so he intended to arrange a harness in his small backyard pool so he could at least conduct stationary swimming training at home. He entered policing because he did not know what else to do after the Navy, but he found the job boring and overpaid for what he was expected to do. He was very much offended by what he saw as special rights and privileges being given gays and lesbians, and how during the gay pride parade, officers were instructed to ignore violations and simply keep the peace. He held many other strong opinions about policing. After a couple of hours, I proposed a scenario and asked what he would do. I asked him how he would make sexual orientation training better and more effective if he was assigned as program administrator. I emphasized that his job performance evaluations depended upon making the training effective. Incredibly, for the next 20-minutes he became flustered and confused. Although we were on our way to investigate a reported public intoxication, he kept missing his exits from the freeway. We would get off the freeway, turn around and head back to the correct exit, but again missing it. This happened three times. He commented that "I cant believe I keep missing the off-ramp. No one has ever asked me a question like that." He thought that training on Asians was needed because they are "so different" but otherwise he fumbled around trying to make suggestions. Ultimately, he did not know what to do and was completely surprised someone would ask for his suggestions.
This was an important interview because it highlighted that students are not asked to participate or have responsibility in cultural awareness training, but instead it is something "done" to them. Following this interview, I attempted to implement a reflective homework assignment in the sexual orientation classes I taught. The same questionwhat would you do to make the training more effective if you were program administratorcaused a terrible backlash and the assignment was abandoned (See Chapter 4, Site #8 for discussion).
The title "Cultural Awareness Training" and all its variations are misleading. I propose that the title of these programs be changed. There is nothing inherently interesting about gays and lesbians, African-Americans, Hmong, Jews, etc. Instead, these are groups that American society has negatively identified and marginalized upon that identification. This is called stigmatization. Police have historically been enforcement agents for oppressing stigmatized groups. It is because of changes in political perspectives that oppressions of particular stigmatized groups are no longer tolerated. Therefore, what interests police is how gays and lesbians are stigmatized and how this affects work performanceboth interpersonally and with customers. The current titles for trainings on homosexuality"Sexual Orientation Training," "Alternative Lifestyle Training," and "Gay Day,"exclude many subpopulations and promote inaccurate perceptions. For example, Sexual Orientation Training implies an essentialist perspective on human sexuality that is inaccurate. "Alternative Lifestyle" implies that there is a "normal" lifestyle (which is heterosexual). Likewise, "Gay Day" leaves out lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites. Let me suggest that "Cultural Awareness Training" would be better identified if it were called "Training on Socially Stigmatized Communities" and training on the stigmatization of persons who do not conform to the heterosexual norm be called, "Training on Sexual Stigmatized Communities." Another benefit in relabeling "Cultural Awareness Training" to "Training on Socially Stigmatized Communities" is that it forces law enforcement agencies to evaluate their actual training needs instead of relying upon the simplified notions of "culture."
Appendix F presents a comprehensive program and instructional model for teaching "Training on Sexual Stigmatized Communities" in law enforcement. This model can be easily adapted for other kinds of stigmatization trainings.
.c2.Recommendations

6. Once a reanalysis of the instrumental data is completed, a composite instrument that accurately measures attitudes, feelings and behaviors within a questionnaire of less than 50 items needs to be developed. Every agency and academy expressed a desiree for a low-cost assessment instrument for evaluating the effectiveness of their sexual orientation training. Interviews and written evaluations are deemed too costly for wide-spread use.
Most importantly, it is recommended that research be continued and replicated. The more we learn about effective training on sexual stigmatized communities, the faster our society can overcome homophobia and heterosexism.

Vincent, R.J. (1974, March/April). New scale for measuring attitudes. School Health Review, 5, 2, 19-21.
S.c2.SummariesNine different sexual orientation trainings were observed and data collected. Two of the training sites were basic academies associated with large metropolitan police departments. Four of the training sites were basic academies connected to California Community Colleges and served local police agencies. Police recruits made up the student population at all but one of the observed basic academy classesthe other class being an in-service for police administrators. One training site was an In-Service program for all personnel within a small police department. Training observations were analyzed using psycholinguistic/humanistic education theory (see Appendix D). Interviews with students, instructors, program administrators, and gay and lesbian community activists used the Overt-Institutional-Societal model of homophobia to assess the culture in which sexual orientation training was conducted. Interviews were also used to gather data on appropriate police behaviors in situations that had gay and/or lesbian components. Empirical testing was conducted on students to assess changes in attitudes, feelings, knowledge, identities, and behaviors concerning homosexuality. The same empirical testing was conducted with some of the other interviewees. Out of 438 students who were observed, 167 completed pre-/post-testing and 6 participated in interviews. Twenty-two instructors/panel members, 10 program administrators, and 18 community members were also interviewed. Approximately half of the interviewees completed the instrumental tests.In general, there were three teaching approaches observed for sexual orientation training. One approach was to use a panel of gays and lesbians to share their life stories and allow course content to emerge from these stories (herewith referred to as the Panel Method). Two sites used this approach:1.)Site #6 used a panel consisting of civilian members (4 gays and lesbians) obtained through the local gay and lesbian community services center. Between panel members sharing stories and specific information on human sexuality and police behaviors being presented, almost 2/3 of class time was used for lecture and limited questions and answers activity. No individual or small group activities were used. Educational analysis of this site revealed this was the least effective training of all those observed because the instructors were not appropriate role models, length of training was too short (less than 2 hours), class size was too large (105 students), there were no self-awareness activities, no discussion of gay and lesbian stigmatization, and too little specific police application. Instructors presented an essentialist sexual orientation perspective. Class observations and student written responses were all moderately homophobic. Unfortunately, only 3% of recruits participated in the pre- and post- instrumental testing and results could not be considered representative of the whole. (Perhaps the low rate of participation is another indicator of the academys moderate level of homophobia?) Interviews with police personnel also painted the agency moderately homophobic. Only a few gay and lesbian police officers were open in the agency, there were no open staff members at the academy, and the academy has had only one or two open recruits in the past few years. The academy and agency have strong anti-discrimination statements, but complaints based on sexual orientation discrimination have recently been filed. Administrators showed fear when talking about homosexuality and took a deficit perspective on homosexuality. Support for sexual orientation training was tentative and poor. Overall, the training was ineffective and sexual orientation training appears to be marginally supported as evidenced by the moderate levels of homophobia displayed by students and administrative personnel.2.)A panel of police personnel (5 gay and lesbian officers) was used at Site #1. Here, the instructors, length of training (almost 2 1/2 hours) and class size (17) were good. Lecture, and limited questions and answers activity represented 100% of training time. No individual or small group activities were used. Showing the video, Growing Up Gay assisted in demonstrating homophobia and the effect it has on gays and lesbians. However, allowing content to emerge primarily from panel members sharing stories, reduced training effectiveness so much that this site rated in the lower half of observed training methodologies. Instructors presented an essentialist sexual orientation perspective. With 76% of the class participating in the instrumental research, three of the tests indicated moderately low levels of homophobia. Only Part 2 Feelings toward gays and lesbian instrumental test was statistically significant and showed a positive (less homophobic) change of approximately 10%. Caution: this was a very small class and these conclusions are based on just 13 responses. Administration makes strong statements supporting sexual orientation training, but does not take a proactive approach to including gays and lesbians in the agency and took a deficit perspective on homosexuality. Interviews with students and police personnel indicated that gays and lesbians are conditionally accepted by the agency. Lesbians were fairly accepted while gay men were not. Overall, the agencys panel members were excellent, training methodologies and content were lacking, the agency appears to conditionally support sexual orientation training, and instrumental testing was unrevealing for most measures except that feelings toward gays and lesbians improved slightly.A second approach was to open discussion immediately from the beginning of class and solicit concerns students had about homosexuals and homosexuality (herewith referred to as the Open Dialogue Method). Topics emerged from the class-wide discussions and content came from the instructor or subject matter expert. 1.Only one instructor used this method at Sites #2 and #). The instructor was a respected heterosexual officer/educator of limited expertise on homosexuality and subsequently was a good, but not excellent choice, for training instructor. The length of training (almost 2 1/2 hours) and class size (43 students) also were not ideal. Lecture, and questions and answers activity consumed 100% of training time. No individual or small group activities were used. By allowing content to emerge from student concerns, combined with lack of expertise on the content, the training at this site was rated next to last in educational effectiveness. Because the instructor took time out of class to administer instrumental testing, 72 to 79% of students participated which revealed appalling high levels of homophobia in the classes. Student comments and written responses about gays and lesbians were vicious. Only at one site was empirical testing significant on Part 2Feelings toward gays and lesbians which reflected students becoming more anti-gay (by almost 14%) at the conclusion of training. There were no open gay or lesbian recruits or staff members at the academy. The instructors took a deficit perspective regarding homosexuality. Overall, the training conditions were not good, the instructor was a fair but not an excellent choice, content failed to be addressed from the Open Dialogue Method, feelings toward gays and lesbians worsened, empirical testing was mostly unrevealing and the exceedingly high levels of homophobia and deficit perspective impacted the agencys support of sexual orientation training.A third approach was much more structured and followed closely to established curriculum (herewith referred to as the Structured Method). The Structured Method included: lecture, student activities, and specific content delivery. Three different instructors used this method at five different training sites.1.)At Site #5, the team of instructors (2 lesbians, 1 gay male, 1 heterosexual male), length of training (almost 3 1/2 hours) and class size (45 students) were ideal. The team demonstrated expert knowledge, classroom management skills, and was by far, the best training team observed. Content followed a set curriculum with lecture and question and answer activities representing 60% of class time. No individual or small group activities were used. The biggest failings of the training were the lack of student involvement in solving problems or increasing their self-awareness about gays and lesbians. In terms of instructional methodologies, this training site was ranked in the middle of observed trainings. Instructors presented an essentialist sexual orientation perspective. Unfortunately, no empirical testing of students was allowed but written statements by students indicated a moderate level of homophobia in the academy and agency. Considering the current lawsuits against the agency over sexual orientation discrimination, the low number of open gay or lesbian officers, no open staff members, and the agency administrators reluctance to participate in the research, the level of homophobia in the agency could be deemed moderate to high and conditionally supportive of sexual orientation training. Overall, instructors were ideal, instructional methodologies were good but could have been more inclusive of students, and the agencys culture seemed moderately homophobic which impacted the effectiveness of sexual orientation training.2.)At Site #4, the instructor (1 lesbian) was an excellent role model and clearly skilled at classroom processes. Class size was fair (30 students) and length of training was excellent with four hours devoted to sexual orientation training. A full 82% of class time was used for video, lecture and question and answer activities. No individual or small group activities were used. Much material was covered concerning local politics and police response to protest demonstrations. Students gained excellent self-awareness on their feelings about homosexuals through a number of activities. The failings of the training revolved around students receiving little specific information on human sexuality, no discussion of stigmatization, nor appropriate police behaviors in gay and lesbian situations. The instructor presented an essentialist sexual orientation perspective. Students were also not involved in solving problems which resulted in this training ranking in the middle of observed instructional methodologies. Instrumental data collection was limited. Very few students or police personnel participated in the research. Although the class was observed to hold overwhelming anti-gay sentiments, the written comments were much less homophobic. The instrumental data was inconclusive about training effectiveness since less than one-forth (20%) of the class participated and no pre-test was given. Administration gave strong support for sexual orientation training and the police culture was virtually non-homophobicthe best seen at any academy. Overall, training rated in the middle of effectiveness for observed trainings, the agency seemed accepting of gays and lesbians, the recruit class seemed more negative than the agency, and instrumental data on training effectiveness was incomplete and non-revealing.3.)I taught three different sexual orientation trainings at one site (referred to as Sites #7, #8, #9). Each time the course was taught, various elements of the content and methodologies were varied. Although I was almost the worst candidate for instructing in law enforcement environments, by modifying my personal presentation I was able to improve my acceptance by students. The length of training was almost four hours and ideal, but class sizes were horrendous (up to 94 students) with poor classroom conditions. Yet, by evolving the curriculum to come in line with educational theory, the instructional methodologies and content became very effective rating in the top of the observed sites. I used many individual and small group activities (up to 29% of class time) to involve students in self-awareness, overcoming stereotypes, and solving problems, and distributed an 85-page booklet of information. The biggest drawback of the training was the lack of lesbian and gay police officers to share their stories and the inappropriateness of the instructor. The two recruit classes were moderate to highly homophobic as expressed in interview, written comments, instrumental testing and classroom behavior. The in-service class of police administrators was not as homophobic. The last class (the one that complied closest to education theory), recorded a statistically significant improvement (approximately 5%) in student feelings toward gays and lesbians. Other instrumental measures were unrevealing about training effectiveness. Academy administrators supported sexual orientation training and fought political battles to hire the instructor, but the administration viewed homosexuality as a deficit and was unaware of any open gay or lesbian personnel. Overall, I was able to overcome many of my role-model deficits through manipulation of my presence. Instruction methodologies conformed closer to education theory with each subsequent class, and therefore became more effective. The academy culture was very homophobic and recruits reflected that homophobia..c2.Research Questions ReviewedIn Chapter 1, five research questions were presented. This section will address each one and present the research findings.Issue #1 Training and Program Goals: Training on sexual orientation is occurring because gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transvestites are fighting to overcome their stigmatization and oppression caused by a heterosexist and homophobic society. Educational approaches to overcoming stigmatization require instructional goals stated in both behavioral and attitudinal domains and designed to maximize the interaction of gay-positive attitudes and behaviors within a meaningful exchange. This means that organizational goals need to support anti-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation, making the work environment safe and supportive for all employees, and improving relations with all customers. Training goals support the organizational goals through: (1) informing students about the organizations anti-discrimination policies, (2) facilitating self-awareness so students can evaluate their compliance to the organizations goals, (3) providing accurate information on homosexuality and societys stigmatization of gays and lesbians to assist students in replacing negative feelings, attitudes and behaviors with gay-affirming feelings, attitudes and behaviors, and (4) engaging students in developing strategies for overcoming homophobic and heterosexist behaviors found in the work place.Interviews with instructors, program administrators, students, and gay and lesbian civilians revealed that training and programs goals were often vague. When comparing interviewee responses with the four training goals presented in the previous paragraph, most respondents wanted sexual orientation training to sensitize, obtain greater acceptance, present gays and lesbians in a more positive light, show that gays and lesbians are normal, not sick, are not pedophiles, do not recruit, eliminate myths and stereotypes, and show that sexual orientation is not a choice. All these goals fall within the realm of goal #3 (providing accurate information to dispel myths and change attitudes). Only three interviewees mentioned equal treatment (goal #1), two mentioned self-awareness (goal #2), and two mentioned that employee safety (goal #4) were appropriate goals. Thus, most police personnel and training instructors are unclear about how training goals reflect back to the anti-discrimination policies of the police agency or academy, and fail to tie homophobia and heterosexism with racism, sexism and stigmatization.Training observations confirmed the confusion most training sites had about sexual orientation goals. Only the Structured Methods attempted to cover all four training goals. Even then, most of the Structured Methods emphasized self-awareness or accurate information. One training site engaged students in solving problems and developing strategies. Educational analysis showed that trainings which attempted to address all four training goals were more effective.Without exception, every training instructor announced to the class that they were not there to change your values or beliefs but instead, to give information that will make you better professionals. The training attempts to change behaviors and attitudes regardless of the instructors pronouncements. In Chapter 2 it was shown that both behaviors and attitudes reinforce and change concurrently, that it is impossible to change only one, and that this is what is sought in sexual orientation training. However, it is necessary to recognize that every instructor felt the need to make such pronouncements to reduce student resistance to participating in training.Issue #2 Training Assessments: Assessing levels of homophobia and gay attacks in the community does not give a direct measure of training effectiveness since many other factors are influential. Similarly, assessing levels of homophobia in police agencies are not directly related to training effectiveness. Instrumental assessment of training effectiveness (pre- and post-testing of student attitudes, feelings, knowledge and behaviors about homosexuals and homosexuality) proved to be mostly unrevealing (see Appendix E). The failure to detect change may have resulted from student lying, a selective subpopulation of students who did participate, and/or many other factors. Only the Index of Homophobia (feeling toward homosexuals) showed statistical significance for a number of training sites. The primary methodology used to assess training effectiveness was classroom observations using education theory. One assessment instrument asked students what they remembered about the training. If the speaker was dynamic, that is what they remembered. If a particular video or activity was engaging whether positively or negatively that is what they remembered. Asking this kind of question was unrevealing about the effectiveness of program subtleties. Interestingly, from 10 to 15% of students had a compelling need to make negative comments about homosexuality, even though this question did not request such comments.Evals, as students refer to the evaluation forms they often complete after attending cultural awareness trainings, provide an assessment on how well the student liked the class and instructor, but is not an assessment of training effectiveness. It is important for students to respect and enjoy the instructor and class. Negative evaluations should not automatically conclude that training was ineffective, but rather a different balance needed to be met in finding appropriate instructors and instructional methodologies.Issue #3 Influence of Police Culture on Training Effectiveness: The police culture toward gays and lesbians had a significant influence. From the very beginning when recruits were selected to attend the academy, the attitudes and feelings police administrators held about homosexuality were reflected in the attitudes and feelings held by recruits. Instrumental testing revealed that if an overall agency was gay-affirming then both administrators and their recruits would score more gay-positive than in a gay-negative environment and vice versa. This suggests that recruits reflect their academy administrators and administrators select students who reflect their own values.Only one training site could have been classified as virtually non-homophobic. They had many open gay and lesbian officers, and open gay and lesbian administrators. Training devoted a large chunk of the entire cultural awareness program to sexual orientation and made anti-discrimination an important value within the police organization. All other training sites measured moderate to high levels of homophobia. At these homophobic sites, gay male officers were never accepted and it was believed dangerous for them to come out. Lesbian officers, if tolerated, were accepted reluctantly. Furthermore, program administrators at these homophobic sites felt that sexual orientation training was important but held deficit positions about homosexuality. Sexual orientation training was presented as a separate module and perceived to be unrelated to police work. Even if the training was excellent, the homophobic police culture prevented gay-affirming values to permeate the organization.Bringing in an outside panel of gay and lesbian community activists was the least effective training. This is not surprising since it reflects the academies non-commitment to overcoming homophobia. It is simple to go out and get gays and lesbians to come talk to the academy, but it is much harder to develop gay and lesbian officers capable of conducting sexual orientation training. If a law enforcement organization is vested in overcoming homophobia, it must make the effort to provide an environment safe enough for officers to come out, and also to participate in sexual orientation training.Issue #4 Training Parameters: Administrations support for sexual orientation training has the most influence. Their beliefs and feelings set the tone for establishing an environment that is free of heterosexism and homophobia. Administrators need to be honest and recognize if they hold deficit beliefs about homosexuality. There is much more to creating a safe work environment than simply stating that discrimination will not be tolerated. Instead, administrators need to embrace and value people of differing sexual orientations and act as role-models of acceptance for all employees. Instructional effectiveness based on psycholinguistic/humanistic perspective requires:1.Instructors to be appropriate role-models for students (necessitating different instruction teams for different groups of students), subject matter experts, skilled at group instruction, and respected law enforcement professionals.2.Contents need to reflect training goals and the reality of law enforcement workspecifically:a.Students need to become aware of their own attitudes, feelings and behaviors toward homosexuality. Self-Awareness Activities used by some of the training sites were excellent. Other sites used Stereotype activities and claimed these achieved self-awareness but did not. Stereotype activities demonstrated the use of language to marginalize subpopulations. Every training needs to include some kind of self-awareness activity.b.Students need to become aware of their fellow workers and societal attitudes, feelings and behaviors toward homosexuality, and how these are used to stigmatize and oppress gays and lesbians (show the link between homophobia, racism, sexism and stigmatization). However, the skilled instructor will be aware of the over-all level of homophobia in the class and not allow a wave of anti-gay sentiments veer the class toward reinforcing homophobia. Instead, the skilled instructor will control self-awareness activities to promote pro-gay attitudes and feelings. Also, students often believe that gays are seeking special rights through their gay agenda, which obfuscates the terrible legal discrimination gays and lesbians face on a daily basis. This issue must be addressed.c.Accurate information about human sexuality to dispel myths and stereotypes are needed to overcome homophobia. Most instructors presented an essentialist perspective that is a simple answer which limits discussion and removes sexual choices from moral consideration. However this is incomplete and inaccurate.d.Students need to hear about the personal lives of gay and lesbian law enforcement personnel, particularly as it relates to their acceptance of being homosexual in a heterosexist society, and their desires to be in law enforcement. Having a greater diversity of gay and lesbian instructors was the number one suggestion students made for improving sexual orientation training.e.Detailed information needs to be presented about police interactions with gays and lesbians (points-of-contact). (Some specific behaviors have been culled from interviews and are discussed in Issue #6 Police Behaviors.)f.Students need to be involved in developing strategies for overcoming homophobia.Students were asked to submit questions about sexual orientation. An overwhelming majority wanted more science-based information on sexuality and particularly what causes homosexuality. Questions were also asked on the following: (1) the relationship between homosexuality and AIDS, (2) personal feelings of the instructor concerning their realization about being homosexual and their relationship with their families, and (3) many political questions about what the gay community wants. Even though students were asked to submit questions, instead a large segment of the class (from 14% to 28%) ignored the direction and instead negative statements against gays and lesbians.3.Instruction methodologies must recognize the social aspects of learning and lean toward a blend of individual and small group activities, instructor led activities, class-wide discussions and questions and answer activities, and direct lecture. The greater the amount of lecture or passive video watching, the less effective the training. Students must become involved and at a personal level.4.Social interactions aimed at self-awareness and personal growth requires time. The minimum time acceptable for effective sexual orientation training is 4 hours. All attempts at shorter instructional sessions were much less effective.5.Many interviewees expressed their concerns that sexual orientation training is almost exclusively reserved for recruit training. If law enforcement organizations value this training, then all personnel should attend.Students were asked to make suggestions for improving the sexual orientation training. Predominately, students (and administrators during interview) wanted a diverse team of instructors comprised of open gay and lesbian officers. More time, more activities, more videos and more information primarily on gay and lesbian family relationships were also suggested. Approximately 10% of all responses wanted the other side of the issues presented, specifically to hear from ex-gays and about reparative therapies.Issue #5 Police Behaviors: One major goal stated for sexual orientation training is to modify police behaviors to be more respectful of gays and lesbians. To ascertain what these behaviors should be, three different gay and lesbian scenarios were presented to interviewees and they were asked what behaviors should be manifest by police officers. There were two lines of responses reported by interviewees. Most police administrators, heterosexual employees and students made very few suggestions and often stated, Treat them just like everyone else. In contrast, most gay and lesbian interviewees, police administrators vested in organizational change, and all instructors, gave elaborated answers pointing out the influence a gay or lesbian component has on police behavior.Of those persons who gave elaborated responses, there was fair agreement as to appropriate police behaviors in gay or lesbian situations:1. When a long-time partner comes out gay or lesbian (a) feel honored the partner shared the personal information, (b) inquire as to why this information is being shared at this particular time, (c) that since they were long-time partners, to apologize for not making it safe earlier in their partnership and for any possible homophobic remarks and jokes, (d) KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL it is up to the gay or lesbian person to tell other people unless they explicitly authorize telling other people, (e) ask questions to show genuine interest, and (f) recognize that being out will not change professional conduct. 2.During a domestic dispute between two women assumed to be lesbians (a) the women should be separated, calmed down and interviewed, (b) ask what the relationship is between the women because domestic disputes between couples are the most dangerous, (c) determine if a crime was committed being aware that research has shown that the wrong persons are arrested 80% of the time when involving gay or lesbian couples due to gender stereotyping (Arnett, 1994), and (d) make an arrest if necessary. A few lesbian officers stated that they would come out to the women if it seemed necessary to obtain a better investigation. 3.When responding to a suspected gay bashing in the park (a) obtain medical services if needed, (b) conduct an interview asking for details of what happened and descriptions of assailants, (c) about half of the interviewees felt it was necessary to ask the men if they were gay, while other interviewees said the mens sexual orientation was immaterial because the law cared only about what derogatory language, if any, was used during the attack, (d) ask what was said by the assailants, (e) inform the victims of the hate crime laws, (f) it should be reported as a hate crime if either the officer suspects that the attack was motivated by hate or the victims requests that the report be filed as a hate crime, and (g) reassure the victims that the crime will be taken seriously and to not blame the victim. A few gay and lesbian officers stated that they would try to engineer the investigation such that the victims do not have to come out gay or lesbian, and that if the victims or witnesses seemed hesitant to talk, then the gay or lesbian officer would come out to them to secure their confidence. Cultural awareness program administrators and sexual orientation training instructors need to be aware of the reticent heterosexual officers and most recruits have toward recognizing the unique behavioral requirements needed during police interactions with gays and lesbians. The elaborated responses by the gay and lesbian respondents revealed a greater depth of understanding that needs to be explored during sexual orientation training..c2.ConclusionsThis research is the first formalized evaluation on the effectiveness of sexual orientation training. More than anything, this project points out the need for observations, and willingness to learn different methods to teach this controversial subject. Some of the training was effective and reflected the efforts made by the academy or agency to provide the best possible training. Even in the worst training, there were potential elements of effectiveness to learnan effective activity, a good handout, a particular perspective, etc. Hopefully, more research will be conducted to find those nuggets of effectiveness so that others may improve their efforts.One of the recurring themes made by law enforcement administrators was that there are no problems regarding discrimination against gays and lesbians since they have not heard of any complaints. When these administrators were asked if there were any open gay or lesbian personnel in their agency, often they would indicate they suspected there might be, or that it was common knowledge a particular person was, but they themselves had never spoken with that person on the subject. In reality, the suspected homosexual was not being accepted, otherwise the administrators would have known much more about his or her personal life and would have socialized in ways that would have allowed the suspected homosexual to be open. By not seeing the problem, they wrongfully assumed there was no problem. This blind eye to the agencys homophobia and heterosexism, and the all too common deficit beliefs about homosexuality, permeated the agency and negatively impacted the sexual orientation training.One of the more surprising and disturbing findings of this research is the level of self-deception found among training instructors and program administrators concerning their cultural awareness training program. Every agency and instructor interviewed believed that their cultural awareness training program was far superior than anyone elsesthat their cultural awareness training program was the best and light-years ahead of the rest. Yet, none of these persons ever observed training conducted by other agencies or instructors. In fact, until I went from academy to academy to observe sexual orientation training, no one from California POST had ever formally observed the cultural awareness trainings conducted at the academies. POST does not field audit the very cultural awareness training it mandates. Yet these people believed that not only were they doing a good job, but that they were leaders in the fielda field they had not researched. As detailed in Chapter 4 and Appendix D, some of the sexual orientation trainings were fairly effective reaching maybe 70% of their potential. Other trainings were dismal and violated most of the elements of effective instruction. Obviously the pride they hold about their programs is usurping their motivation to improve their programs. Students were not generally involved and vested in sexual orientation training. Lecture, passive video watching and limited interactions with instructors or panel members consumed most of training timeand for most academies virtually 100% of the time. Individual and small group activities were rarely used. Problem solving on police scenarios in which homosexuality played an important component was rarely used. Furthermore, students were not held accountable for participating in the class or demonstrating they had learned the content. Although testing in the academy occurs for most other knowledge domains, cultural awareness and sexual orientation were not testedwhich sends the message to students that this kind of knowledge is not important to police work. The lack of testing for content presented at sexual orientation training is just one of many examples of structural deficits in the entire law enforcement training program of California. It was reported that officers are not tracked during their careers from the academy, to field training, and then on the job. Similarly, there is no communication among these three levels of training regarding officer performance. Correlating student training performance with field training performance and job performance would provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness of training programs. Without these feedback loops, improving the effectiveness of training programs is virtually impossible. How important is it to involve students? Let me relate one of the more memorable interviews I conducted while on a ride-along. For approximately 4 hours, I rode in a police car on patrol with a male officer. Invariably he told me his life story and opinions about policing, gays and lesbians, and life. This officer was an extremely macho heterosexual ex-Navy seal who prepared daily for tri-athlete competition. He recognized that his physical training was limiting his time spent with his wife, so he intended to arrange a harness in his small backyard pool so he could at least conduct stationary swimming training at home. He entered policing because he did not know what else to do after the Navy, but he found the job boring and overpaid for what he was expected to do. He was very much offended by what he saw as special rights and privileges being given gays and lesbians, and how during the gay pride parade, officers were instructed to ignore violations and simply keep the peace. He held many other strong opinions about policing. After a couple of hours, I proposed a scenario and asked what he would do. I asked him how he would make sexual orientation training better and more effective if he was assigned as program administrator. I emphasized that his job performance evaluations depended upon making the training effective. Incredibly, for the next 20-minutes he became flustered and confused. Although we were on our way to investigate a reported public intoxication, he kept missing his exits from the freeway. We would get off the freeway, turn around and head back to the correct exit, but again missing it. This happened three times. He commented that I cant believe I keep missing the off-ramp. No one has ever asked me a question like that. He thought that training on Asians was needed because they are so different but otherwise he fumbled around trying to make suggestions. Ultimately, he did not know what to do and was completely surprised someone would ask for his suggestions. This was an important interview because it highlighted that students are not asked to participate or have responsibility in cultural awareness training, but instead it is something done to them. Following this interview, I attempted to implement a reflective homework assignment in the sexual orientation classes I taught. The same questionwhat would you do to make the training more effective if you were program administratorcaused a terrible backlash and the assignment was abandoned (See Chapter 4, Site #8 for discussion).The title Cultural Awareness Training and all its variations are misleading. I propose that the title of these programs be changed. There is nothing inherently interesting about gays and lesbians, African-Americans, Hmong, Jews, etc. Instead, these are groups that American society has negatively identified and marginalized upon that identification. This is called stigmatization. Police have historically been enforcement agents for oppressing stigmatized groups. It is because of changes in political perspectives that oppressions of particular stigmatized groups are no longer tolerated. Therefore, what interests police is how gays and lesbians are stigmatized and how this affects work performanceboth interpersonally and with customers. The current titles for trainings on homosexualitySexual Orientation Training, Alternative Lifestyle Training, and Gay Day,exclude many subpopulations and promote inaccurate perceptions. For example, Sexual Orientation Training implies an essentialist perspective on human sexuality that is inaccurate. Alternative Lifestyle implies that there is a normal lifestyle (which is heterosexual). Likewise, Gay Day leaves out lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites. Let me suggest that Cultural Awareness Training would be better identified if it were called Training on Socially Stigmatized Communities and training on the stigmatization of persons who do not conform to the heterosexual norm be called, Training on Sexual Stigmatized Communities. Another benefit in relabeling Cultural Awareness Training to Training on Socially Stigmatized Communities is that it forces law enforcement agencies to evaluate their actual training needs instead of relying upon the simplified notions of culture.Appendix F presents a comprehensive program and instructional model for teaching Training on Sexual Stigmatized Communities in law enforcement. This model can be easily adapted for other kinds of stigmatization trainings..RecommendationsThis research is the first of its kind and just scratches the surface. Some of the analysis may be skewed because of difficulties in obtaining representative samples. Participating agencies and academies who volunteered should not be considered representative samples of basic police training academies. Despite agreeing to participate, several academies restricted testing and collection of other data. More research needs to be conducted on this topic with the following considerations:1.Student participation was problematic. At training sites where time in class was devoted to administering the assessment instruments, much higher student participation rates were obtained. Even still, the highest participation rate was 84%. Without in-class testing, participation rates plummeted to a low of 3%. Similarly, all written assignments benefited from being performed in class instead of on students own time. It could be those students choosing not to participate may be the very students this training is trying to reach. Future research needs to obtain better agency cooperation and in-class testing and data collection.2.The instrumental tests were mostly unrevealing for pre-/post-test analysis. Only the Index of Homophobia showed changes at some of the sites. A detailed analysis needs to be made of the other assessment instruments to determine why they are not revealing statistically significant changes. 3.Vincent (1974) argued that simply comparing the means of pre-and post-test scores can be misleading since the attitude that the educational experience is trying to change may already be possessed by some of the students. He emphasized that researchers need to have a goal attitude in mind when creating assessment instruments and to compare only those sub-groups that need the most change. 4.The two assessment instruments developed for this study Gender Identity-Sexual Identity-Emotional Identity, and the Police Behavioral Scenarios on Homosexualitywere either too controversial to administer, or not discriminating between respondents. Both of these instruments need revision and further testing.5.Not attempted in this research was cross-correlation between levels of homophobia and other psychological characteristics identified in Chapter 2 (police stereotypesauthoritarian, prejudicial & bigoted, needing to be in control, cynical in natureand the characteristics of homophobes).6.Once a reanalysis of the instrumental data is completed, a composite instrument that accurately measures attitudes, feelings and behaviors within a questionnaire of less than 50 items needs to be developed. Every agency and academy expressed a desiree for a low-cost assessment instrument for evaluating the effectiveness of their sexual orientation training. Interviews and written evaluations are deemed too costly for wide-spread use.Most importantly, it is recommended that research be continued and replicated. The more we learn about effective training on sexual stigmatized communities, the faster our society can overcome homophobia and heterosexism..BibliographyArnett, C. (1994). Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council. 220 San Vicente Blvd. #309, Santa Monica, CA. 90402. (310) 393-6676Vincent, R.J. (1974, March/April). New scale for measuring attitudes. School Health Review, 5, 2, 19-21.