| |
If your question is not answered here, please e-mail TexasQSA@gmail.com to submit your question.
What are gender-neutral restrooms? The report calls for additional gender-neutral restrooms on campus. This is referring to private, single-stall, locking restrooms that can be used by any person (not "desegregating" current restrooms). To imagine a gender-neutral restroom, think about the restroom you probably have in your home: It's likely private, single-stall, locking and can be used by anyone.
Why are gender-neutral restrooms needed? Gendered restrooms (restrooms that are specified for men or women) are potentially unsafe and intimidating places for a variety of people. If someone's gender identity or sexual orientation is assumed to be "wrong" or out of a place in a certain restroom, the possibility for harassment and violence is opened.
Who benefits from gender-neutral restrooms? Gender-neutral restrooms provide a safe facility for transgender people, as well as anyone who faces the possibility of harassment based on assumed gender or sexual orientation in a gendered restroom. These restrooms may also be important to families with children and people with disabilities who need the assistance of an attendant of another gender. Single-stall restrooms more easily meet the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
How much does it cost to implement gender-neutral restrooms? Though the report does not study how much it costs to implement gender-neutral facilities, it does list which restrooms on campus would be most easily (and inexpensively) converted to gender neutral. These are frequently restrooms that are already single-stall or only have a few stalls, and usually would only require a change of signage and the addition of a lock to become gender neutral, thus keeping costs down.
Rather than implementing gender-neutral restrooms, shouldn't QSA wait until society is accepting enough that gendered bathrooms are a safe place? This would provide no solution or support to people who are the victims of violence and harassment today. The reports calls on each member of the campus community to work for a more inclusive tomorrow while solving the problems of discrimination and marginalization that face the community today.
Is the report calling for segregation of queer and non-queer students? Not at all. In addition to segeregation based on sexuality and gender expression being near impossible to accomplish - and fully unwanted - recommendations such as improving the Gender and Sexuality Center, creating an LGBTQ studies program, and implementing an optional living and learning community in campus housing are aimed at community building and utmost safety, not segregation. The majority of non-LGBTQ people on campus necessitates that all queer people will interact with non-LGBTQ people in housing, in class, at work and in social situations each day. Even if all recommendations are implemented, this won't change.
If queer people are not the only people who can become HIV-positive, why does the report recommend free HIV testing for all students? Though HIV/AIDS impacts all people, the report recognizes that HIV/AIDS has a disproportionately negative impact on the LGBTQ community. We believe that, in recognition of the devastation of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and in an effort to fight it, the University should offer free HIV testing to students (as do 10 of its 11 comparison universities). According to the Centers for Disease Control, one-fourth of all people with HIV do not know they have HIV and thus may be spreading the disease to others without even realizing it.
Why should transgender and other LGB people receive "special treatment" in housing? The report does not call for special treatment of LGBTQ people; rather, it calls on the University to provide these students safety in their housing assignment. It is the current practice of the University to reassign a homophobic/problematic roommate if that person is living with an LGBTQ person who feels unsafe in the situation. The report also looks specifically at the experiences of transgender students in housing and recommendations that transgender students should have the option of living in a single room without additional any charge if they must do so to avoid a potentially unsafe situation. The current UT housing plan - which includes many gender-segregated halls, dorms and roommate pairings - means these areas may open transgender students to the threat of harassment and fear based on their gender identity and what gender they are assumed to be.
Is the report asking for the UT community to focus exclusively on LGBTQ people's gender identity or sexual orientation? No. The report is attempting create an environment where every student, queer or not, can express their gender and sexuality and be recognized and valued as complete individuals. LGBTQ students cannot always fully express themselves or find community or support for fear of being ridiculed, judged, devalued, harassed or violated in some way. The report would like for queer students to be recognized both for their identities as LGBTQ and for all other identities they possess - a full expression envisioned for all members of the UT community.
The report calls for ally training for faculty and staff. Isn't this costly? Safe Space ally training for faculty and staff is not costly because the people who gives these training sessions - including staff of the Gender and Sexuality Center and the student organization - already give these sessions currently and do so without charging. There would not be an added cost to the University.
I'm an LGBTQ person and everything seems okay to me - I haven't experienced any harassment. What if the release of the report causes harassment? First, it is hope of the writers of the report that it is respected as the experiences of some members of the community, but not all. We understand that queer students on campus have a multitude of experiences. Second, though we certainly hope additional harassment would not be spurred by the report, if the release of this report does cause a rise in harassment, we believe that would give further evidence that the campus climate is not always "okay" for queer students at UT and that action needs to be taken. We envision a University in which all stakeholders can express their gender identity and sexual orientation as they see fit with no negative reactions or fear of reprisal.
Do you know how much it would cost to implement the recommendations? QSA did not calculate or estimate how much it would cost to implement all recommendations. We are depending upon key UT decision-makers to come up with creative solutions and seek the funding sources necessary to meet the needs of LGBTQ people on campus.
Why should LGBTQ concerns be implemented across the curriculum? Why should LGBTQ staff and faculty be recruited? Including LGBTQ content, faculty and staff is part of making queer identities and concerns visible and promoting a message of acceptance. It is also historically accurate to include the contribute of LGBTQ communities throughout time, perspectives that are frequently missing from most coursework. This is not a matter of advocating for the arbitrary inclusion of unnecessary material in class content, nor are we advocating for affirmative action in choosing LGBTQ staff and faculty. Rather, we seek a successful change in campus culture, including curricula that is more historically accurate and making potential faculty and staff aware that this campus is a safe and welcoming place where all aspects of diversity are valued. The reports call for the recruitment and retention of LGBTQ faculty and staff for the same reason the University seeks to hire from faculty and staff of color and women faculty and staff - because a diverse learning environment benefits everyone, and because these groups are underrepresented in the current University environment. The report does not ask that anyone be hired on the basis of their sexual or gender identity - anyone hired by the University must be extremely well-qualified in their field to even be considered, and that would not change.
Course curricula already cover significant ground - wouldn't adding LGBTQ content prove to be too much? We are not asking for anything that is historically inaccurate. Many times, the contributions of LGBTQ people are mentioned without identifying the historical contributors as LGBTQ people and affirming heterosexist assumptions through silence. Integrating queer concerns and contributions would not cover any more ground the current curriculum; it would shift some of the focus, though, to be more historically accurate and reflective of the world.
When should UT implement these recommendations? A timetable was not specified for implementation of these recommendations. Some recommendations could likely be implemented within several months; some are more long-term, and might take five to ten years. We are leaving it to the discretion of University administrators and area heads to specify appropriate timetables for areas within their jurisdiction. QSA will, however, follow up on this report and progress made by Oct. 1 of each academic year.
Why should unmarried students, such as LGBTQ couples, be allowed in married student housing? Doesn't married housing exist to support children? The report calls for a shift in married student housing to become family or partner housing, as many of UT's comparison universities label it. Thus, heterosexual marriage is no longer a requirement for admission, making the housing more equitable for all students. Nothing in UT's housing literature describes married student housing as existing to support children.
Are there some areas in which the University is doing a good job in relation to its LGBTQ community? Yes; there are many strong points for LGBTQ students at UT, among them being the Gender and Sexuality Center, established in 2004. Other strong points are listed in the report.
Why was this report written? In meeting with other LGBTQ students and allies, members of the Queer Students Alliance identified several areas of concern in which the University was not realizing its core values. However, we had no systematic means to gather these concerns or measure progress. This report is that means in that it both gives voice to some of our community's concerns, calls for much-needed changes, and sets a minimal standard for the University to work toward.
Who wrote this report? Members of the Queer Students Alliance, an agency of Student Government, other members of the LGBTQ community, and allies worked together to produce this document.
What is the information in the report based on? Based primarily on an online qualitative survey conducted in the spring of 2006, the report is also based on information collected in focus groups, interviews, and meetings. The survey data included 127 respondents; further demographic information can be found in the Introduction section of the report.
What does the report hope to accomplish? The primary recommendation the report makes is: The University of Texas at Austin should articulate and follow through on an unequivocal message of inclusiveness toward LGBTQ people. The report also lists a number of other recommendations that flow from this first recommendation. These are listed according to the individual department, area, or center responsible for their implementation and according to the core value with which the recommendation can be aligned. Each of these recommendations is also expanded upon at the end of the relevant chapter.
I'm not LGBTQ, should I read this report? Yes. The entire UT community has a stake in creating an environment that is supportive of all of its members. The report discusses the experiences of LGBTQ students in relation to faculty and staff, other students, institutional structures, and the LGBTQ community itself. Therefore it is important that all UT community members understand their roles in improving the campus environment.
Is there an abridged version of the report? While the Executive Summary outlines the most basic findings and lists recommendations, it does not cover many important aspects or list recommendations in their entirety. Readers of the report should be sure to look at individual chapters in order to get a more in-depth view of particular concerns or issues.
Does this report represent the entire LGBTQ community? No. This report does not represent all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students on campus. Several data collection methods were employed to sample as many LGBTQ identified students as possible, but it is far from an exhaustive study of our community.
Does the report detail all community concerns? No. The report does not cover all community concerns. It is the recommendation of the authors that the Queer Student Alliance and LGBTQ students across campus review the report's recommendations and progress that has been made and document these and other community concerns as they arise each academic year. There is much space for continued research, and the report takes this into account.
How can I get involved in community advocacy as an ally or community member? Contact the Gender and Sexuality Center at gsc@uts.cc.utexas.edu about ways to become a better ally or get involved with the LGBTQ community on campus, or contact the Queer Students Alliance at texasqsa@gmail.com.
What happens now? Members of the Queer Students Alliance have been and will continue to meet with administrators to discuss the report and the recommendations it makes.
Who should I contact if I want to be updated as progress is made on the report's recommendations? A list serve has been created specifically to publicize updates. Interested individuals should contact QSA TexasQSA@gmail.com and ask to be added to the list serve.
I am not connected to UT. How could I create something similar at my institution? If you are interested in conducting a similar evaluation of your institution, please contact QSA at texasqsa@gmail.com or the UT Gender and Sexuality Center at gsc@uts.cc.utexas.edu for more information about the collection of data or the writing process.
|
![[queerUT]](../images/queertx.jpg)
