Group Title: comparison of gay and heterosexual teachers on professional and personal dimensions
Title: A comparison of gay and heterosexual teachers on professional and personal dimensions
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099108/00001
 Material Information
Title: A comparison of gay and heterosexual teachers on professional and personal dimensions
Physical Description: vii, 128 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Nickeson, Suzanne, 1946-
Copyright Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Teachers -- Psychology   ( lcsh )
Sex (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
Homosexuality   ( lcsh )
Foundations of Education thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Foundations of Education -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Suzanne Nickeson.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1980.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 119-127.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099108
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000099735
oclc - 07119811
notis - AAL5193

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

comparisonofgayh00nick ( PDF )


Full Text










A COMPARISON OF GAY AND HETEROSEXUAL TEACHERS
ON PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL DIMENSIONS













BY
SUZANNE NICKESON












A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1980














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation owes its existence to those trusting teachers who

agreed to divulge their atypical sexual orientations and thereby jeopardize

their employment. The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of

all the teachers who volunteered their time and thoughts.

This dissertation owes its production to the extraordinary relatives,

friends and committee members of the author who have provided relentless

emotional and intellectual support. An individual who deserves special

recognition in this respect is Dave Suchman.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . ii

ABSTRACT. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . 1

Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Nature of the Present Study. . . . . . . . . . . 7

Terminology. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... . . . . . 14

Magazine Articles. ... . . . . . . . . . . 16

Legal Cases and Reviews. . . . . . . . . . ... 20

Development of Sexual Orientation. . . . . . . . . 31

Child Molestation. ......... . . . . . . 37

Proselytization. ..... . . . . . . . . . 39

Femininity and Masculinity .... . . . . . . 40

Prevalence of Homosexuality. ..... . . . . . . 42

Conclusion ........ . . . . . . . . 43

CHAPTER 3 DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Determination of Sexual Orientation. . . . . . . .... 51

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

iii
















CHAPTER 4 RESULTS . . . . . . . .

Bem Sex-Role Inventory . . . . ......

Teacher Characteristics Schedule . . . . .

Interview. . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . .

Femininity and Masculinity . . . . . . .

Professional and Other Personal Characteristics. .

Homosexuality as a Classroom Topic . . . . .

Ramifications for the Employment of Teachers . .

Limitations of the Present Study . . . . .

Implications for Future Research . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A ADJECTIVES OF THE BEM SEX-ROLE INVENTORY .

APPENDIX B SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM THE TEACHER CHARACTER

SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCE NOTES . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . .


Page

62

63

72

84

93

95

95

100

106

106

111

112

114

115




. .


. .,

. .



STICS



. .


. . . 116

. . . 118

. . . 119


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . .. . . . . . . . . . 128













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A COMPARISON OF GAY AND HETEROSEXUAL TEACHERS ON
PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL DIMENSIONS

By

Suzanne Nickeson

August, 1980

Chair: Barry J. Guinagh
Cochair: Rodman B. Webb
Major Department: Foundations of Education

The purpose of the study was to provide more sophisticated

data on gay teachers than the available anecdotal information. Three

instruments were used to gather data on volunteer samples of

self-labelled gay teachers (n = 30) and then self-labelled heterosexual

teachers (n = 30) for comparison. The heterosexual teachers were

matched with the gays on age, sex, and number of years in teaching.

The participants taught grades K-12 in both public and private schools

throughout the state of Florida and were obtained primarily through

personal contact and referral.

Previously the only available data on gay teachers were found in

magazines and legal journals; these data were described. Other areas

of information relevant to the characteristics and stereotypes of gay

teachers were also reviewed: the development of sexual orientation,

femininity and masculinity, child molestation, and proselytization.









The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) yielded independent scores of

femininity and masculinity, based on endorsement of stereotypic

attributes. The Teacher Characteristics Schedule (TCS) yielded scores

on six scales: attitudes towards pupils and school personnel, religion

and religion-associated morality, openness to change/liberal attitudes,

social/personal adjustment, dedication to teaching, and validity of

response. A personal interview provided information on demographic

variables, sexuality as a classroom topic, and perceptions of various

aspects of teacher influence on students' sexual identity. Both

teacher groups were also compared to normative data from national

samples on the two standardized instruments. Variables controlled for

in the statistical analyses were sexual orientation (gay or

heterosexual), grade level taught (elementary or secondary), and sex

(female or male). The level of significance was p = .05 for all tests.

Results from the BSRI indicated that gay women scored

significantly higher on the masculine scale than did heterosexual

women, with no differences on the feminine scale. Gay men scored

significantly higher on the feminine scale than did heterosexual men,

with no differences on the masculine scale. When compared to the

national sample, the gay teacher group scored significantly higher on

both the feminine and masculine scales. No differences were found

between the national sample and the heterosexual teacher group.

Results from the TCS indicated no significant differences between the

gay and heterosexual teachers on any of the scales. Compared to the

normative sample, gay teachers were more open to change, less











religious, more socially personally adjusted, and less dedicated to

teaching; heterosexual teachers were less religious, less dedicated to

teaching, and more prone to give valid responses.

For the interview data, questions with quantifiable responses were

reported, including descriptive comments by the teachers. Only one

interview question produced a significantly different answer for gay

and heterosexual teachers: "Do you think that you can influence the

development of sexual identity in your students?" Significantly more

gay teachers replied "no."

Differences on femininity and masculinity exhibited between gay

and heterosexual teachers within sex concur with the results of other

studies. Both lesbians and gay men are more likely than heterosexuals

to behave in ways considered appropriate to the opposite sex by

cultural standards. The failure to find differences on any of the TCS

scales has more than one possible interpretation. The finding could be

a function of an unreliable instrument, a Type II error, or the result

of actual similarity between gay and heterosexual teachers.

Implications of these results and other data on the employment of

gay teachers are discussed. Some misconceptions about gay teachers are

delineated, accompanied by research which contradicts those

assumptions.















CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION



There have always been gay teachers, and it is likely that there

always will be. Especially since the crusade against gays began in

1977 (with Anita Bryant's activities), many adults have become

concerned about the possible effects gay teachers may have on

children's emotional and sexual development. The present study

provides demographic, educational, and psychological data collected

from a sample of gay teachers in Florida, grades K-12, and from a

comparison sample of heterosexual teachers.


Statement of the Problem

Homosexuality in general. A majority of human societies approve

of or even encourage various forms of homosexual behavior (Ford &

Beach, 1951, p. 125). This is not the case in the United States,-as

several attitude surveys have shown. The following figures indicate

the percentage of those polled who thought homosexuality: "wrong," 58%

of university students (Nyberg & Alston, 1977); "very much obscene and

vulgar," 65% of adults (Levitt & Klassen, 1974); "should not be legal
















between consenting adults," 43% of adults (Gallup Opinion Index, 1977);

and "abnormal or unnatural," 78% of adolescents (Sorensen, 1973).

Glenn and Weaver (1979) reviewed the results of seven recent national

surveys conducted during the 1970's to measure attitudes towards

homosexuality. In 1973, 80% of the population thought same-sex

relations were always or almost always wrong; in 1977, the percentage

dropped to 77.7% (Glenn & Weaver, 1979).

Direct behavioral measures have revealed findings similar to those

of survey studies regarding attitudes towards gays (Morin & Garfinkle,

1978). In one study of physical interpersonal distance, for example,

participants placed gay persons farther from themselves than all other

"marginal figures" (Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1971). Interestingly, a

person known to have been formerly gay was put at a greater social

distance than was a currently gay person.

Basis for negative attitudes. The primary source of these

negative attitudes is the wide-spread belief that homosexual behavior

is "'unnatural' and 'perverted'" (Levitt & Klassen, 1974, p. 30). The

belief that homosexual activity is unnatural can be based on either

religious or secular reasoning (Dressler, 1978, p. 435). Analysis of

these reasoning is essential to understanding the strong, negative

attitudes that gay teachers face.

The secular meaning of "unnatural" is "not being in accordance

with nature or consistent with a normal course of events" (Webster's















New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, p. 1281). From anthropological and

historical literature it has been concluded that homosexual behavior is

noted in all groups that do not make a pronounced effort to suppress

it, and even in groups which condemn it (Churchill, 1967, p. 70).

Whenever a society has left behind sufficient detailed records,

descriptions of male homosexuality in some form are apparent (Knight,

1965, p. 434; West, 1977, p. 119). Since homosexual behavior has

occurred in cultures throughout history and across the world, it can be

described as a natural occurrence. "Homosexuality is an inherent

feature and is in accordance with the nature of the human species"

(Dressler, 1978, p. 435).

Religious statements are used more often than secular arguments to

support antihomosexual sentiment. Under the traditional Judaeo-

Christian interpretation of the Old and New Testaments homosexual

behavior is considered a sin (Weinberg, 1972, p. 9). The taboo on

homosexuality is probably still strongest where there are religious

objections to it (Tripp, 1975, p. 8). McNeil (1976, pp. 205-206) has

delineated three religious interpretations of homosexual behavior: the

homosexual condition is contrary to the will of God, the presence of

gays in a community is menacing, and the love between two gay

individuals is a sinful love which separates them from the love of God.

Legal sanctions. The socialization of hostile attitudes towards

gays can be found in regulations against homosexual behavior.















Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have laws which

variously name "deviant" sexual behaviors as criminal acts. In four of

these states only homosexual acts are specified as criminal (Kansas,

Montana, Nevada, and Texas). Twenty-two states have decriminalized

adult homosexual behaviors, 13 of these since 1975 (Rivera, 1979;

Friedman, 1979). The latter group of statutes permit homosexual acts

which occur in private settings and with mutual consent between the

participating adults.

Negative attitudes towards homosexuality have been confronted by

organizations and individuals "both gay and nongay" who seek an

increased understanding and acceptance of homosexuality. Most of the

work towards greater acceptance has occurred in the realm of legal

provisions. Through challenging existing legal statutes and through

enacting specific protections, a few changes have been wrought.

The struggle for equal treatment under the law has included

efforts to enact new antidiscrimination protection for gays seeking

housing, public accommodations, educational opportunity, recognition of

organizations, and employment. At least 40 cities and counties have

passed such antidiscrimination ordinances (Mathews, 1977). Some of

them (e.g., in Eugene, Ore., and Dade County, Fla.) have since been

repealed by public referendum. Evidence of a "backlash" is nationwide

("Why Tide Is Turning," 1978). One group in Los Angeles began a

campaign seeking capital punishment for gays (Mathews, 1977).










5



Gay teachers. Attitudes towards gay teachers are more disdainful

than those towards gays in general. Gallup (1977) found that 65% of

adults said "homosexuals should not be hired as elementary school

teachers" (p.7). Furthermore, half of those polled who said gays

should have equal job rights did not think gays should be hired as

school teachers. Levitt and Klassen (1974) obtained a nation-wide

probability sample of more than 3,000 adults. Seventy-four percent of

that sample agreed with the statement "homosexuals are dangerous as

teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved

with children" (Levitt & Klassen, 1974, p. 34).

A speaker for Protect America's Children has written about why gay

teachers should not be in the schools ("Do Homosexuals Have the

Right," 1978). She notes that because gays have not been able to

discern the difference between right and wrong in their own behavior,

then their ability to correctly make other judgments must be questioned.

Max Rafferty focused on the issue of preserving the family: "We cannot

have it [gays teaching] because the actual survival of our country in

the years ahead will depend upon a generation that will grow up

straight--in the best sense of that much abused word--not distorted"

(Rafferty, 1977, p. 92).

Conclusion. The problem is essentially a matter of reaching a

fair decision about whether to permit or forbid teachers with a

homosexual orientation to work in schools. It has been demonstrated
















how the prevailing negative attitudes towards homosexuality conflict

with more accepting attitudes. In the following chapter psychological

and sociological literature will be described which further examines

the objections to gays as a group and gay teachers in particular.

Legal literature will illustrate how knowledge of a teacher's

homosexual preference results in loss of employment in nearly every

instance.

Antihomosexual attitudes are based on personal values, not on

empirical findings. Because of these negative attitudes, gay teachers

must keep hidden a part of their selves which heterosexual teachers can

and do talk about freely. Therefore, it seems essential to obtain from

a group of gay teachers information which can substantiate or refute

the prevailing attitudes.

Need for the Study

To date no research in sociology, psychology, or education has

investigated the situation of gay teachers. Without such data and

without a better understanding of the development of sexual orientation

(heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or some other), discussion of

possible influences on pupils can only be based on arbitrary

assumptions and personal opinion. Parents, teachers, school

counselors, administrators, students, judges, and other citizens could

gain from increased information about gay teachers. The present study

is aimed at increasing available knowledge and current understanding













which can benefit not only the persons mentioned but also society as a

whole.

One school administrator has noted, "the imperfect knowledge

available on the subject of the homosexual teacher's impact as a role

model for students" (Ostrander, 1975, p. 20). The present research

provides specific data on samples of gay and heterosexual teachers in

order to discern what characteristics of gays might justify the current

discrimination against them. Fairchild and Hayward have stated that

there is no field of employment in which fear of homosexuality is more

pervasive or emotionally loaded than that of teaching (1979). "The

subject of whether exposure to gay men and women in classrooms and

locker rooms encourages homosexuality in students is hardly ever

debated publicly, and in the few instances where this happens, more

heat than light is usually generated" (Fairchild & Hayward, 1979, p.

99). Much study and discussion are needed.


Nature of the Present Study

Due to the lack of research on gay teachers, the present study

is by nature exploratory. "The first step in the development of

science is the accumulation and clarification of experience" (Mouly,

1978, p. 27). To that end, demographic, educational, personality, and

other psychometric data are provided on a sample of gay teachers. This

information is then compared to a sample of heterosexual teachers














similar in age, grade level taught, and number of years working as a

teacher.

Several areas of information are particularly important when

discussing sexual orientation as it relates to teaching. One area

involves the teachers' self-perceptions of sex-role behaviors and

attitudes. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory was administered to provide

measures of femininity and masculinity. Another area is of general

teacher behaviors and attitudes: do gay and heterosexual act

differently towards their students or school staff? To provide data in

this area, the Teacher Characteristics Schedule was used. Specific

scales were selected to measure social and personal adjustment,

attitudes towards pupils and school personnel, dedication to teaching,

religiousness and belief in cultural traditions, value of innovation

and "liberal" policies, and social desirability. In addition, the two

teacher samples from Florida were compared to national scores on these

measures.

The teachers described here volunteered for the study and

therefore are not assumed to represent teachers in Florida. The gay

teachers are individuals willing to be recognized as gay and to talk

with a stranger (in most cases) about personal beliefs and activities.

So long as a social stigma is attached to homosexuality, gay people

cannot be expected to be public about their sexual orientation. Gay

teachers are understandably even more sensitive to the likely














repercussions of public exposure. A representative sample of gay

teachers would be practically impossible to obtain at this time. The

heterosexual teachers were matched to the obtained gay teachers, on the

factors mentioned above.

The study is not based on a particular theory; rather it draws

upon principles of social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1976),

psychological femininity and masculinity (Bem, 1974, 1977; Heilbrun &

Thompson, 1977) and the characteristics of teachers (Ryans, 1960,

1971). It is hoped that the results will yield data that can clarify

present and generate future hypotheses about the effects of gay

teachers on their students.


Terminology

This study describes a sample of teachers in Florida who--for

whatever reason--prefer to share their sexuality with people of the

same sex. In the past the term "homosexual" has been applied to such

individuals. It denoted a person who engaged in homosexual behavior,

in contrast to heterosexual behavior (opposite-sex preference). In the

last decade, however, the matter of connotation in the labelling of

"homosexual" has emerged as a crucial issue.

Due to prevalent negative attitudes towards homosexuality,

"homosexual" came to be regarded as a negative label to persons of

same-sex preference (Dressler, 1978; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; Jay &














Young, 1977; Katz, 1976). A person who identifies herself or himself

as "homosexual" accepts, to some degree at least, society's devaluation

of her or his sexuality. In contrast, the word "gay" has been used as

a positive label.

Being called "gay" is different from being called "homosexual";

the former is a positive term, the latter, negative (Morin & Garfinkle,

1978; Riddle, 1978). In The Gay Report, Jay and Young (1977) indicate

the importance of "what's in a name":

Perhaps the greatest single signpost of community has
been the insistence by most homosexual people in recent
years on the use of their own names--gay, lesbian, and
for an earlier generation, homophile--instead of the
clinical "homosexual." The appropriation of the word
"gay" by gay people--irksome as it is for some
straights--has been a cornerstone of self-determination.
(p. 766)

The gay-identified individual rejects society's condemnation (Morin &

Schultz, 1978).

The censure of "homosexual" is evident in more than merely public

attitudes. Even though the professional organizations for psychiatry

and psychology have removed "homosexual" from their classification of

mental disorders, individual psychiatrists and psychologists continue

to maintain the negative connotations of the term. They do so both

through their condemning attitudes and through active programs aimed at

eliminating homosexual behavior (Garfinkle & Morin, 1978; Gramick,

1973). Some psychiatrists and psychologists attempt to "treat"














homosexual patterns (Bieber, 1976, p. 165) and even seek out

"pre-homosexual" children (particularly boys) in an effort to prevent

homosexuality (Rekers, Rosen, Lovaas, & Bentler, 1978).

In a readership survey of psychiatrists, Lief (1977) reported that

69% of responding psychiatrists considered homosexuality to usually be

a "pathological adaptation (as opposed to a normal variation)" (p.

110). Nearly three-fourths of the respondents believed that "problems

in living" for gays are more a result of personal conflicts rather than

of social stigmatization. Lief suggest three possible explanations for

these responses which are contrary to the American Psychiatric

Association's declassification in 1974: 1) the organization's vote was

influenced by social and political considerations, in that the vote was

perceived as a move toward stopping the denial of gay rights; 2)

psychiatrists with strong feelings on this issue were more inclined to

answer the survey; 3) opinions of psychiatrists have changed since

1974.

Gay people are influenced, directly and indirectly, by the

attitudes and actions of mental health professionals. The message

prevails beyond their offices that "homosexual" is not an identity to

like or accept in oneself. Katz has noted, "psychological-psychiatric

professionals must be divested of their power to define homosexuals;

gay people must acquire the power to define ourselves" (1976, p. 7).














Because many gays feel devalued by the term "homosexual," it will

not be used in the present study to identify a person of same-sex

preference unless the intention is to illustrate an existing negative

connotation. "Homosexual" will also be used as an adjective to denote

specific activities, overt or mental, that involve same-sex

individuals. The term "lesbian" will also be used to describe gay

women.

"Homosexuality" will be used to describe the social reality shared

by all gay women and men, simply because they experience the same

conditions in a heterosexual society. Bell and Weinberg (1978) explain

how this term indicates the importance of the social context, and not

merely a sexual affinity:

Homosexuality encompasses far more than people's
sexual proclivities. Too often homosexuals have been
viewed simply with reference to their sexual interests
and activity. Usually the social context and
psychological correlates of homosexual experience are
largely ignored, making for a highly constricted image
of the persons involved. (pp. 24--25)

"Homosexuality" will also denote the general phenomenon of same-sex

erotic desire or activity (Dressler, 1978).

The word "heterosexual" will be used an an adjective and noun to

describe those individuals and behaviors involving opposite-sex erotic

activity and/or attraction. "Straight" is the counterpart to "gay,"

but it also carries negative connotations: rigid, undeviating.

Although the terms "gay" and "heterosexual" are not precisely parallel,

they will be used in this study as the most acceptable descriptions of

the two sexual orientations.











13



The word "heterosexual" will be used an an adjective and noun to

describe those individuals and behaviors involving opposite-sex erotic

activity and/or attraction. "Straight" is the counterpart to "gay,"

but it also carries negative connotations: rigid, undeviating.

Although the terms "gay" and "heterosexual" are not precisely parallel,

they will be used in this study as the most acceptable descriptions of

the two sexual orientations.















CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW



There is no literature specifically on gay teachers in the

fields of education and psychology. To date there has been a lack of

research in this area. The information available on gay teachers

appears in two sources: articles in popular and education magazines

and in the legal literature. This chapter will describe the

information from these two sources.

Other areas of literature bear upon the issue of gay teachers.

Reviews of the psychological data on development of sexual orientation,

child molestation, and proselytization will also be included in this

chapter. The chapter concludes with a statement on the prevalence of

homosexuality in the United States.

Before proceeding with the review of relevant literature, it is

appropriate to differentiate between several terms used in discussing

sexual identity. The following definitions are a synthesis of those

used by several authors (Brooks-Gunn & Matthews, 1979; DeCecco &

Shively, 1977; Green, 1974a; Riddle, 1978).

A person's sexual identity is a basic personality feature. It can

be described as having four components, listed here in chronological

order of their usual development:














1. biological sex--defined by chromosomal configuration and

ordinarily by anatomical appearance; determined before birth;

male or female.

2. gender identity--sense of being female or male; not necessarily

contingent upon biological sex; starts to form at age 2-3 and

once established (by age 5-6) is extremely resistant to change;

often referred to as a "conviction of femaleness or maleness."

3. sex-role identity--socially-determined constellation of traits

which characterize females or males in a given culture; can be

redefined as cultural emphasis changes; in present

psychological terminology, categorized into feminine,

masculine, androgynous (more than average amounts of both),

undifferentiated (little of either); largely based on

stereotypes.

4. sexual orientation--sexual preference; defined primarily by the

biological sex of preferred sexual partner: same biological

sex (gay orientation), opposite biological sex (heterosexual

orientation), both sexes (bisexual orientation), or neither sex

(asexual); a generalized label, since the preference may be a

function of particular circumstances and changing individual

needs (e.g., emotional, affectional; see the last section of

this chapter).















The four components are in some ways related; for instance a woman

usually has a female gender identity, but she may not. A man with a

masculine sex-role identity does not necessarily have a heterosexual

orientation. Furthermore, sexual identity (with its four aspects) is

simply one part of a person's identity.


Magazine Articles

Articles about gay teachers have appeared in several national

magazines, such as Psychology Today, Parents', Saturday Review, and

Instructor. The articles range from short humorous comments to large,

more complex discussions of the issues. These magazine articles

illustrate both the range of published opinion and the state of

knowledge about gay teachers.

Some articles are brief anecdotes which relate personal

experiences of gay teachers (e.g., "Teachers as Role Models," 1977;

Trent, 1978). One magazine conducted a brief reader survey on

attitudes towards gay teachers ("Gay Teachers and Parents," 1979).

Other writings are comments on one or more aspects of the gay teacher

issue. Generally these are found in popular magazines like Newsweek

(Lubow, 1978) and Saturday Review (Schrag, 1977). Such articles

contain various opinions and often factual information. The Lubow

article, for instance, included comments by a San Francisco elementary
















teacher who does not keep his homosexual preference a secret. "I like

to touch kids and they like to sit on my lap . I do it as a loving,

giving adult, not a pervert. I couldn't deny a kid a comforting arm

around the shoulder because of someone else's fantasy" (1978).

Two articles cover the subject of gay teachers in greater detail,

including discussions of current psychological knowledge of sexual

orientation development; both of these articles merit special

attention. One was written for Parents' Magazine by a former teacher

who now produces public radio shows (Merrow, 1977). Merrow writes

about parents' fears of what effect a gay teacher may have in leading a

child to homosexuality, and provides evidence that such fears are

unfounded. He even suggests the strong parental and social censure of

homosexuality may actually make some youngsters turn to it. Merrow's

main point is that the real issue is sexuality, not merely

homosexuality. He considers the problems of adolescent abortions and

births, for example, to be far more serious than the narrow question of

the influence of gay teachers.

The other article of special merit appeared in McCall's magazine

(Hechinger & Hechinger, 1978). The report reflects a balance of

comments by teachers, administrators, and leaders of churches and gay

organizations. The authors note that a commonsense discussion of the

gay teacher issue is precluded by "exaggerated claims and irresponsible

fearmongering" from individuals on both sides (Hechinger & Hechinger,















1978, p. 163). The article concludes with a statement that no rational

obstacles should prevent gays from teaching, so long as they are

subject to the same standards and controls as are all teachers.

In conjunction with the Hechingers' article, McCall's polled

public school principals regarding the employment of gay teachers ("How

School Principals Feel," 1978). Four thousand principals of elementary

and secondary schools were randomly selected throughout the country to

receive a questionnaire; over one-third returned their responses. In

answering the question, "If you learned that one of your teachers was

homosexual, would you consider that automatic grounds for dismissal?"

42% of the principals answered "yes." Several commented that such

dismissal involves not just the attitudes of the principal (and, they

added, school boards and superintendents) but legal issues as well.

I would consider it grounds, but I don't think I could
make it stick in today's society. If it became a court
case, I am certain I would lose. Therefore, I would seek
other reasons for dismissal. ("How School Principals
Feel," 1978, p. 161)

Seven percent of the principals had received complaints of

homosexual contact between students and teachers; 90% of those

complaints were isolated (nonrecurring) occurrences. Thirteen percent

of the principals had received complaints of heterosexual contact

between students and teachers; 83% were isolated occurrences. In most















cases, simply the number of complaints was reported, with no indication

of whether the complaint was investigated and found justifiable. Only

2% of the principals knew of instances in which teachers allegedly

discussed their homosexuality in class. In general, the principals'

remarks reflect attitudes which vary as widely as those of other

Americans.

The educational magazines that have published information on gay

teachers are few. Instructor presented a one page forum on the right

of gays to teach in schools ("Do Homosexuals Have the Right," 1978).

Brief responses to the question were provided by representatives from

Protect America's Children and the National Gay Task Force. The

American Educator published an opinion article (Bennett 1978) and

welcomed readers' replies. The author's view is represented by the

following statement:

I believe that homosexuals who are overt and
self-declared about their homosexuality, who have an
interest in arguing for homosexuality as a lifestyle, and
who make efforts to change student values about
homosexuality in ways fundamentally inconsistent with
values that the school and community affirm, should not be
teaching in public schools. (Bennett, 1978, p. 23)

Phi Delta Kappan has furnished the most information to educators.

One article on court rulings and "the teacher's right to privacy" was

printed in 1975 (Ostrander). In 1977 several articles on the topic of

gay teachers were printed in one issue. A wide range of viewpoints was

represented. At one end of the range was the following opinion:















The very fact that there are voices in our profession
I . raised on behalf of a cause as noxious, as unsavory, as
tainted as this one goes a long, long way to explain why said
profession sinks daily into the public opinion doghouse.
(Rafferty, 1977, p. 92)

A contrasting opinion was presented by a gay teacher. He wrote,

"Schools have the responsibility and obligation, with the rest of

society, to help in the demystification and correction of

misinformation concerning gay people" (Anonymous, 1977, p. 93).

On the editor's page for the 1977 Phi Delta Kappan issue, Elam

noted that he had talked with superintendents in every major U.S.

region about employing gay teachers (Elam, 1977). Only one of the

superintendents (all men) said he would knowingly hire a gay teacher,

and then acknowledged that the school board members would not approve

of such an action should they find out.

In summary, magazines have published various kinds of articles on

gay teachers. The information provided, while representing a wide

range of opinions, is generally tolerant of teachers who are gay.

Generally the strongest negative opinions were expressed by education

administrators and religious groups. Two "mass media" publications,

Parents' Magazine and McCall's, presented the most balanced and lengthy

discussions of the gay teacher issue (Hechinger & Hechinger, 1978;

Merrow, 1977).














Legal Cases and Reviews

Because of negative attitudes toward homosexuality, gay teachers

are almost automatically subject to dismissal if their sexual

orientation becomes known. At least twelve legal cases involving gay

teachers in dismissal or certificate revocation have been heard in

courts since 1967. Several excellent reviews of the principles and

decisions of these and related cases have been published in legal

journals (Dressler, 1978; Fleming, 1978; Ghent, 1977; Scholz, 1979;

Tewksbury, 1978).

Cases under scholarly and legal examination are predominately

those with a considerable basis for appeal (Fleming, 1978). An unknown

number of situations involving gay teachers are settled outside of the

courts, either through unchallenged dismissals, resignations, or

nonrenewal of certification. In fact, this unknown number may

constitute a majority. The vice-president of a national organization

concerned with legal and personal counseling for gays has stated, "In

my experience in the Mattachine Society I have been consulted by nearly

a hundred teachers, in the last five years, facing dismissal . none

that I can recall have taken their cases to the courts"--they resigned

out of fear (Horenstein, 1971, p. 131). Such a report concurs with a

statement by a school board officer: "In the Board's [Cleveland]

history, teachers that have been accused of homosexuality which

influenced their job have always resigned" (Horenstein, 1971, p. 131).

The phrase "which influenced their job" has little meaning since the

personnel officer said that no individual would be hired to teach who















was known to be gay. Homosexuality itself was considered to be

negatively influential; an adverse influence did not have to be

substantiated.

The following review of legal information will discuss unfitness

to teach, a concept crucial in litigation to determine whether to

retain or employ gay teachers. This concept includes the issues of

exemplar role of the teacher and morality. A distinction will then be

made between regulation of teacher behavior and protection of teacher

rights.

Exemplar. Historically our society has regarded education as a

crucial function of the government (Dressler, 1978). Teachers are

assumed to affect both the intellectual and moral development of youths

with whom they spend so much time. Probably more than any other group

of public employees, teachers are expected to be models of good

behavior, adhering to the popular moral code of the community in which

they work (Francis & Stacey, 1977). A teacher who has served

competently for years may suddenly be deemed unfit if her or his sexual

orientation becomes known to school officials, simply because standards

of employment are equated with majoritarian moral values (Scholz,

1979).

In view of the high expectations set for teachers, it has been

necessary for the judicial system to determine whether a teacher's

sexual preference and/or conduct lie within the permissible ground for














dismissal. To that end the courts have used general notions, including

that of exemplar. The term has been used in litigation with teachers

on numerous charges, not only those dealing with homosexuality.

Teachers are regarded by the public as an exemplar, "whose words and

actions are likely to be followed by the children coming under his

[sic] care and protection (Ghent, 1977, p. 34).

There is some indication that this high expectation for teachers

is inconsistently applied in the courts. In one instance (Board of

Education v. Millette, 1976), the court criticized casting teachers as

role models. The judge stated that a teacher cannot be expected to

mirror every quality which society desires in its children (Dressler,

1978). A dissenting (minority) opinion was espoused in a nonhomosexual

case (Pettit v. State Board of Education, 1973): "the majority opinion

is blind to the reality of sexual behavior. Its view that teachers in

their private lives should exemplify Victorian principles of sexual

morality . is hopelessly unrealistic and atavistic" (La Morte,

1975, p. 466).

Immorality. Morality is ever changing, affected by both time,

culture, and locale (Horenstein, 1971). In the past teachers have been

dismissed from their positions--not merely reprimanded--for such

infractions as becoming intoxicated at a private party (in 1902);

applying for a marriage license, contrary to the teaching contract (in

1935); assiging the book Brave New World to a class (in 1965); and

















having an opposite-sex friend spend the night (in 1972) (Dressler,

1978; Horenstein, 1971). When a teacher fails to obey laws or

otherwise "act in accordance with traditional moral principles,"

sufficient ground for dismissal has been considered present (Ghent,

1977, p. 34).

The problem in applying the principle of morality is in

determining a consistent and satisfying definition. Understandably,

the interpretation of what constitutes morality and immorality will be

based on values and beliefs. In our heterogeneous society, no single

description of immoral sexual behavior can be successfully invoked.

Indeed, a review of case law involving the disqualification of gay

employees reveals the operation of subjective moral attitudes in the

decisions of the courts and school boards (Scholz, 1979). Tewksbury

found one theme outstanding in the present treatment of homosexuality

by the courts: a community may justify discrimination by imposing a

single morality on all citizens (1978).

Some courts have declared that immorality cannot be determined by

the personal ethical principles of the court (i.e., of the judges), but

must be based on the moral standards existing in the community

(Tewksbury, 1978). Such an interpretation creates problems because of

conflicting standards. So broad an application would be likely as to

subject to discipline virtually every teacher in the state, since in

the opinion of many people, laziness, gluttony, and selfishness
















constitute immoral conduct (Ghent, 1977). It would seem to be no more

fair or rational to base dismissal of a gay teacher on adverse

community sentiment than to dismiss a teacher for her or his unpopular

religious or political affiliations (Scholz, 1979).

Unfitness to teach. Fitness to teach depends on a wide range of

factors, not simply based on a teacher's proficiency in the classroom

or the absence of misconduct (Ghent, 1977). Since the principle of

immorality is too vague to be meaningful, one court (Morrison v. State

Board of Education, 1969) held that an adverse effect of a teacher's

questionable conduct must be shown (Fleming, 1978).

To avoid mere switching labels from "immoral" to "unfit to teach,"

the Morrison court detailed a list of factors in determining if

homosexuality makes one unfit to teach (Tewksbury, 1978). The court

suggested that school authorities consider the following:

The board may consider such matters as likelihood that
the conduct may adversely affect students or fellow
teachers, degree of such adversity anticipated, proximity
or remoteness of the time of conduct, type of teaching
certificate held by the party involved, extenuating or
aggravating circumstances, if any, surrounding the
conduct, likelihood or recurrence of the questioned
conduct, and the extent to which disciplinary action may
inflict adverse impact of chilling effect on the
constitutional rights of the teacher involved or other
teachers. (Fleming, 1978, p. 426)

The use of this test requires the school and its officials to

"establish a nexus" between conduct and teaching performance (La Morte,

1975, p. 460).
















The above list has been the only attempt by the judiciary to set

standards in determination of gay teacher cases. Subsequent decisions,

however, indicate that most courts have either sidestepped the test of

standards for fitness (Tewksbury, 1978) or simply avoided the issue

(Scholz, 1979). Indeed some courts have become increasingly willing to

base unfitness on "expert" testimony that is devoid of substance, thus

indicating that the dictates of Morrison have not been implemented

(Dressler, 1978). In one case (Governing Board of Mountain View School

Dist. v. Metcalf, 1974) the expert opinion of the school's principal

concerning the impact of the teacher's action on pupils and staff was

regarded as sufficient evidence of unfitness to teach (Francis &

Stacey, 1977). Expert testimony on unfitness cannot be discredited

simply because it is based in part on personal moral views (Ghent,

1977).

Gay orientation without specified act. In several instances, no

particular sexual act was charged to a teacher, but her or his

discharge was executed on the basis of homosexual status or, in one

case, membership in a gay organization (Ghent, 1977; Scholz, 1979).

In these cases, discovery of gay status was never announced in the

school setting. Generally the gay teachers acknowledged their status

upon questioning by a school administrator who acted on suspicion. In

three such cases (Burton v. Cascade Sch. Dist. Union High Sch., 1978;

Gaylord v. Tacoma School Dist. No. 10, 1975; Gish v. Board of














Education, 1976) allegations were never presented that the individuals

were not competent teachers.

Teacher behavior and teacher rights. The behavior of teachers is

regulated by legislative decree in each of the fifty states. The

substance and power of the regulation is a matter of statutes

(Horenstein, 1971). In Florida, teacher certification is granted when

five basic requirements are met, the last of which is "be of good moral

character" ("Certificates Granted," 1979). Within a state, each school

district provides the specific grounds for teacher dismissal, and for

certificate revocation or denial (Ghent, 1977). Thus, a local school

district can determine the majoritarian moral values (Scholz, 1979)

which were discussed previously.

The responsibilities and rights of a teacher as a professional are

governed by state codes; the freedoms and rights of a teacher as a

citizen are secured under the federal Constitution. In general, the

issue of teacher disqualification is solely a matter of state

jurisdiction unless the constitutional rights of the individual have

been violated (Fleming, 1978). The First Amendment freedoms of speech

and expression are unaffected by the absence or presence of tenure

under state law. In order for a state to restrict First Amendment

rights, sexual conduct must materially and substantially interfere in

the operation of a school (Ghent, 1977).














The distinction between state regulation and federal protection

does not, however, provide a clear path for resolving the issue of

employing gay teachers. Circiut court decisions in two cases (Acanfora

v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery Cty, 1973 and McConnel v. Anderson,

1970) conflict on the question of First Amendment rights for gay

teachers (La Morte, 1975). In Acanfora public statements about

homosexuals received First Amendment protection; in McConnell

participation in the gay movement was not protected.

Questions of academic freedom and private conduct for a teacher

ultimately revolve around matters of personal judgment. School boards

and courts can reflect the values of both the individuals who comprise

them and the majority of the community they represent. Here lies the

problem: the majority in most communities holds distinctly negative

attitudes towards homosexuality, attitudes which are based on

stereotypical fears and misconceptions (see Introduction). In one case

(Gaylord) the personal objections of one student and three parents and

teachers to Gaylord's continued presence in the school were accepted as

sufficient evidence of unfitness to teach (Dressler, 1978).

General findings. Even though one district court refused to

reinstate a dismissed teacher, it noted that homosexuality does not

preclude teaching competence (Tewksbury, 1978). In addition, the court

commented that:

So long as the freedoms of others are not affected, a
government intended to promote the life, liberty and
happiness of its citizens must abstain from interference















with individual pursuits, no matter how unorthodox or
repulsive to the majority. (Tewksbury, 1978, p. 176)

Ghent (1977) reviewed cases where sexual matters were grounds for

denial or revocation of a teaching certificate or for dismissal of a

teacher. He categorized each instance by heterosexual or homosexual

content, and then by type of charge against the teacher. In each of

the homosexual cases based on specific sexual acts, the partner

involved was a consenting adult. All other cases involving gays were

based on homosexual status or relationship without specified act. In

contrast, the heterosexual instances were categorized as heterosexual

act with student, heterosexual act with former or nonstudent, and

heterosexual association. The evidence from case law indicates that

gay teachers are neither having sexual relationships with their pupils,

nor with nonconsenting adults.

Friedman (1979) reviewed legal cases of discrimination in

employment based on sexual orientation. He concluded that the

judiciary has not been willing to afford to gays the same protections

that it has asserted on behalf of persons suffering from discrimination

on the basis of race, heritage, or gender. Speaking from the bench,

judges in various courts have described homosexuality as "immoral,

indecent, lewd, and obscene" (in 1970), "repugnant" (in 1972),

"sickening, disgusting, and depraved" (in 1977) (Dressler, 1978,

p. 415).














Summary. The reported judicial decisions dealing with gays in

public education suggest that the relevant case law is neither

consistent nor well-established (La Morte, 1975). Although an attempt

was made in the Morrison decision to establish guidelines, subsequent

cases have not followed them.

In situations where no distinct precedent exists, appeals are

usually made to a higher court. Although presented with more than one

opportunity to provide guidance, the Supreme Court has declined to

address the issue of gay employment (Scholz, 1979). Furthermore, the

Supreme Court's sanction of another decision (Doe v. Commonwealth's

Attorney, 1976), indicates that gay employment will not be protected

under the federal Constitution (Scholz, 1979). It is evident that the

courts have not squarely addressed hiring practices involving gays in

public education (La Morte, 1975).

Study of case law and commentaries illustrates that gay teachers

have not been charged with illegal actions: They have been charged

with being of a homosexual orientation. Conflict arises from the

opinions of some school officials and parents who assume that gays are

by nature a menace to children. Judicial decisions usually coincide

with these assumptions, in spite of the fact that evidence has not been

presented which substantiates claims that gay teachers may be unfit to

teach.














Development of Sexual Orientation

Mistaken notions about the influence of gay teachers on students

are associated with mistaken notions about homosexuality in general.

As Fairchild and Hayward note,

There is alot of confusion in people's minds concerning
the matter of role models, including a widespread misconception
that the presence of homosexual people in a child's environment
can cause homosexuality, as if it were catching, like measels."
(1979, p. 89).

This section will describe what has been published in the psychological

literature on the development of sexual orientation. How such

development occurs in still a relatively unknown process, yet it is

evident that no one factor "causes" a gay orientation.

Several approaches to studying the formation of sexual orientation

have been followed. Within research, two approaches are evident: the

recollections of adult gays (retrospective assessment) and the

diagnosis of "childhood indicators" (prospective assessment) (Green,

1979). Half of the articles using these approaches have studied only

boys' development; the other half studied boys primarily while

furnishing some information on girls.

None of the studies have empirically examined the process of role

modelling in the development of sexual orientation. However, some

theorists have discussed and substantiated the applicability of role

theory to the formation of sexual preference. These writings will also

be described.














Retrospective studies. Saghir and Robins (1973) reported that 70%

of gay women and 16% of heterosexual women considered themselves

"tomboys" as children; the percentages were 35% and 0%, respectively,

as adolescents. "Tomboy" was described using several dimensions, the

discriminating factor being lack of interest in doll play (Saghir &

Robins, 1973, p. 193). A similar proportion of gay men (67%) and only

3% of heterosexual men considered themselves "sissy" in childhood and

early adolescence (Saghir & Robins, 1973, p. 19). This syndrome was

primarily characterized by a persistent aversion to playing with other

boys.

The following childhood activities and characteristics were

measured in another sample of gay and heterosexual men: doll interest,

cross-dressing, preference for company of and play with girls rather

than boys, preference for company of women rather than men, being known

as "sissy," and sexual interests in boys rather than girls in sex play

(Whitam, 1977). Self-report data on all six measures were found to

distinguish between gays and heterosexuals. Not every child who shows

"cross-gender" behaviors is bound to develop homosexual preferences

(Green, 1979). It simply appears that a greater proportion of gays

than heterosexuals recall non-traditional play activities.

Responses from a sample of 5,000 gay women and men in the United

States and Canada are of relevance (Jay & Young, 1977). One question

asked "At what age did you first realize that you were [gay] or somehow

sexually different from other people?" Thirty-eight percent of women

and 69% of men said the realization occurred before age 16 (Jay &















Young, 1977, pp. 52, 105). In response to another question, only 23%

of women and 47% of men stated that (by age 16) they associated this

difference with homosexual acts. From these responses it can be

inferred that a gay orientation is not always formed at the time of

sexual awakening. Furthermore, a person's sexual preference is not

necessarily defined by actual behaviors.

Actual sexual behavior in childhood and adolescence is another

consideration. For males at least, sex play is not a predictor of

adult sexual preference (Brooks-Gunn & Matthews, 1979, p. 7; Kremer,

Zimpfer, & Wiggers, 1975). For instance, Schofield (1965) found that

nearly one-third of gay men had no homosexual activity until after high

school. The majority of boys who engage in same-sex sexual relating do

not identify as gays in adulthood (Kinsey, Pomery & Martin, 1948, p.

113). Practically no data are available on childhood sex play for

females.

Prospective studies. An illuminating work using this approach is

information collected by Green (1978) on 37 children of gay and

transsexual parents. Of the total sample, the 13 older children who

report erotic fantasies or overt sexual behavior were all

heterosexually oriented. Twenty-one of the children were being raised

in seven families where the mother was gay and either living alone or

with another woman. (In some instances both women had children.) No

male gay parents with children were studied. Reported measures of

















sexual orientation included toy, game, and clothing preference; roles

played in fantasy games; vocational aspiration; and peer group

composition.

Another prospective study described the sexual preference of

adolescent boys who had in previous years exhibited "markedly atypical

early childhood behavior" (Green, 1979, p. 108). The measures were

masturbation fantasies, interpersonal genital experiences, and reported

erectile responses to homosexual and heterosexual stimuli. The

emerging sexual orientation of these boys showed considerable

variation: most are exclusively heterosexual, one is bisexual, and two

show stronger tendencies towards homosexuality than heterosexuality.

(The total number of boys studied was not reported.)

Role modelling of sexual orientation. Literature on actual role

modelling of sexual orientation is only in the conceptual stages.

DeCecco and Shively (1977) have written about what influence adult

caretakers, including teachers, can have on the development of sexual

orientation as it is influenced by sex-role identity. They describe

how teachers may and probably do affect children's development by

imposing social norms or by acting as arbitrators as to what is

appropriate behavior for females and males. Arbitration is said to

take place in conflicts between child and social institutions.

Dressler has postulated three hypothetical possibilities of how a

gay teacher could be a model for students (1978). Then, using the role
















theory of Bandura and Walters and others, Dressler analyzed each

possibility for its consequences on a child's sexual orientation.

After describing the contingencies of modelling (e.g., reinforced,

punished, or ignored behaviors), he concluded that the likelihood is

remote that a gay teacher will affect a child's decision regarding her

or his sexual preference. A crucial aspect in this analysis is

Dressler's reliance on the modelling of sex-role behaviors (e.g.,

effeminate mannerisms, aggressiveness) rather than actual homosexual

behaviors (which are not likely to be displayed in the classroom).

Riddle has provided the most extensive literature review and

original formulations about gays as role models (1978). She notes that

naivete regarding the complexity of sexual preference formation lends

itself to ideas that a single "deviant" event (e.g., contact with a gay

adult) could irrevocably shape a child's sexual orientation. Sexual

preference, unlike sex-role identity, is not fixed in childhood.

Rather, Riddle summarizes, changes in sexual preference may take place

throughout adulthood.

This latter notion coincides with the "highway of life" theory

proposed by researchers of sexual orientation development in lesbians

(Hotvedt & Mandel, Note 1). They found that several factors affected

eventual choice of sexual partner for these women: sexual

experimentation, the climate of feminism, existence of flexible

sex-role behaviors and chance. Hotvedt and Mandel concluded that adult

















experiences may alter completely one's orientation or only reinforce

childhood experiences and tendencies.

Bandura and Walters, who have studied identification and role

modelling for twenty years, emphasize the influence of external

social-learning variables (such as the rewarding power of family

members) on the formation of deviant sex-role behavior (1976, p. 431).

Unfortunately Bandura and Walters see sex-roles and "deviant sexuality"

as being essentially identical behaviors to learn. They do not make

the distinctions presented at the beginning of this chapter.

Summary. Research on the development of sexual orientation is

sparse and cannot be regarded as definitive. Feminine boyhood

behavior--as defined by preferences in toys, clothing, role playing,

and sex of peer group members--does not consistently predict a later

homosexual orientation; it does appear, however, to load in favor of

such an outcome for some individuals (Green, 1979). There does seem to

be some evidence that gay women are more likely than heterosexual women

to have displayed nontraditional behaviors in childhood.

The course of homosexual development runs differently in females

and males (West, 1977, p. 169). Adult gay men recall an earlier and

stronger awareness of being "different" in their sexual attractions.

Unfortunately nearly all information about the development of sexual

orientation is self-report and most of that is recalled years after the

development takes place.

















Child Molestation

A belief predominant in our society is that gay adults, especially

men, molest children. This belief is highly significant to the issue

of gay teachers. The survey by Levitt and Klassen (1974) showed that

74% of adults in the U.S. considered gay teachers dangerous because

they try to get sexually involved with children. Similarly, 71%

thought gays try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an

adult partner.

Sometimes child molesters are also called pedophiliacs although

the terms are not synonymous (Swanson, 1971). Pedophilia is the

preference of children as sexual partners, and may be fulfilled through

fantasy without actual participation by a child. Pedophilia is an

unusual deviation in adults regardless of sexual orientation, and

apparently one which occurs almost exclusively in males (West, 1977, p.

212). Child molestation, on the other hand, is an act involving the

forceable intrusion by an adult on a child (Newton, 1978). Such a

definition often leads to difficulty in defining "child." No

identifiable "personality" has been ascertained for either of these

conditions; moreover neither can be associated with homosexuality per

se.

Researchers who have categorized child molesters by sexual /

orientation report that the offenders are usually heterosexual, and

likely married (Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy & Christenson, 1965; Groth &

















Birnbaum, 1978; Schofield, 1965). These findings support the

principals' report that complaints about teacher-student sexual contact

are more frequently heterosexual in nature ("How School Principals

Feel," 1978).

Even though the sexes of the offender and the victim are usually

noted in criminal reports of child molestation, notations are rarely

made about the offender's sexual orientation (Newton, 1978). In the

most comprehensive report to date on incarcerated sex offenders (all

male), orientation was determined and the offenses were divided into

three groups: with a child, with a minor, or with an adult (Gebhard,

Gagnon et al., 1965, p. 11). Of the homosexual groups, the homosexual

offender vs. children was the least oriented toward his own sex

(Gebhard et al., 1965, p. 285). The same study found the use of force

in homosexual offenses so rare (in comparison with heterosexual

offenses) that it was not considered as a separate factor.

There have been several publications providing information

specifically about pedophilia and gay adults. The most recent is a

review of available evidence on the subject;'it concludes that no data

exist which associates child molestation with homosexual behavior

(Newton, 1978). Newton states that clearly the molestation of children

is an important social problem, but it is a detracting line of

reasoning to assume that the problem is some variant of homosexual

behavior. -Indeed, statistics show that child molesters are usually















relatives of the abused child (Walters, 1975, p. 112). In Florida in

1977-78, 67% of molesters were parents of the victim, and another 11%

were other relatives ("What You Should Know," Note 2).

One study did carefully examine the sexual orientation of

incarcerated child molesters, all male. Groth and Birnbaum (1978)

reported that a gay orientation and homosexual pedophilia are not

synonymous. The offenders who selected male child victims either have

always chosen child partners throughout their lives or have done so

after regressing from adult sexual relationships with women. No

peer-oriented gays were found in the sample of 175 men.

In conclusion, the adult heterosexual male apparently constitutes

a greater risk sexually to underage children than does the adult gay

male (Geiser, 1979, p. 79). Gay people as a group are not child

molesters, contrary to popular belief. The majority of gays, like the

majority of heterosexuals, do not seek young partners (Walters, 1975,

p. 130).

Proselytization

Many people believe that gays recruit persons to their sexual

preference. In the Levitt and Klassen survey (1974), 43% of the

general population thought this to be the origin of homosexuality in

more than half the gay individuals. Nearly 20% thought recruitment was

the origin of homosexuality in all gays. However, there is no evidence

that gay people act to proselytize nongays to increase their numbers
















(Dressler, 1978; Tripp, 1975, p. 91; West, 1977, p. 214). Indeed, at

least one writer has noted that the reverse is true: Heterosexuals are

more interested in "converting" gays to a heterosexual orientation

(Friedman, 1979). This is exemplified by most psychotherapists who

regard homosexuality as undesirable if not pathological (Davison, 1976;

Garfinkle & Morin, 1978; Lief, 1977).

Femininity and Masculinity

Over the years a number of personality tests have been used in an

attempt to demonstrate that gays produce responses untypical of their

own sex in terms of cultural expectations. The results have generally

been variable (West, 1977, p. 38). Researchers of sex-role identities

in gay individuals have acknowledged the complexity and difficulty of

their task (Heilbrun and Thompson, 1977). Hooberman (1979) states that

the relationship of homosexuality to sex-role behavior is likely

multidimensional and multidetermined.

Psychological characteristics. One kind of research in this area

focuses on the psychological characteristics of sex-role behaviors.

(Data on appearance, such as dress and mannerisms, are described

separately below.) A relatively consistent finding is that, for both

females and males, proportionately more gays than heterosexuals behave

in ways considered by the society as appropriate to the opposite sex

(Heilbrun & Thompson, 1977; Hooberman, 1979; McGovern, 1977; Saghir &

Robins, 1973; Siegelman, 1972a, 1972b). That is, gay women are more
















likely than heterosexual women to display stereotypic masculine

behaviors such being goal-directed, self-accepting, and competitive;

gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to display stereotypic

feminine behaviors such as being affectionate, emotionally expressive,

and having their feelings easily hurt. As with the entire study of

homosexuality, sex roles have been more often investigated in gay males

than in lesbians.

Appearance. Certain characteristics such as hand movements, gait,

body structure, voice pitch, and choice of apparel are distinctly

associated with women or men in this society. Characteristics

appropriate to the opposite sex have been frequently attributed to

persons with a homosexual orientation (Churchill, 1967, p. 39; Saghir &

Robins, 1973, pp. 106; 267). In two studies which measured such

characteristics, only a minority of gays were, in fact, found to

exhibit opposite-sex appearance or mannerisms.

.One study was the mammoth project of Alfred Kinsey and his staff.

From their data only about 5% of lesbians and 15% of gay men could be

identified by their appearance (McCary, 1978, p. 340).

Effeminacy was evident in a higher proportion of gay males under the

age of 26, with the percentage dropping to 7% as the men grew older.

Saghir and Robins assessed masculinity in lesbians and femininity

in gay men by observation of overt behavior and demeanor. The women

were judged on wearing "severely tailored clothes or with men's

















sportswear," appearing without makeup, looking muscular and heavily set

(Saghir & Robins, 1973, p. 268); under these criteria 32% of the

lesbians were considered masculine. The men were assessed on

"exaggerated feminine gestures, makeup, voice and walk" (Saghir &

Robins, 1973, p. 107); 16% of the gay men were judged feminine.

Thus, as West (1977, p. 37) has noted, only a minority of gays

display to a pronounced degree the social mannerisms and attributes

generally considered more appropriate to members of the opposite

biological sex. The majority of gay men and lesbians adhere to

society's ideal of feminine and masculine appearance.

Prevalence of Homosexuality

It is difficult to make any precise statement about the prevalence

of homosexuality in our society since heterosexual and homosexual are

not discreetly definable categories (Kinsey, Pomeroy & Martin, 1948, p.

638). Measurements of the extent of homosexuality in the United

States' population vary with the definition used. Frequency and

duration of homosexual feelings and/or behavior, opportunity and

emotional aspects are all concomitants which can be considered in

defining sexual orientation. In fact, one researcher is developing an

instrument to measure orientation by accounting for past, present, and

ideal sexual feelings and activities on seven dimensions (Klein,

Note 3).
















The Institute for Sex Research has recently calculated that

between 5% to 10% of the adult population is gay (Williams, Note 4).

If it can be assumed that, in spite of societal pressures, gays are

equally distributed among all occupational groups (Dressler, 1978), a

conservative estimate is that there are presently in the United States

at least 50,000 male teachers and 40,000 female teachers who are gay

(Elam, 1977).

Conclusion

Probably because of the sensitive nature of the topic no research

has been done on teachers who are gay. The present study was

undertaken in an effort to at least partially fill this void and to

provide helpful information for the current dilemma of employing gay

teachers. The next chapter describes the design of the study as well

as the teacher samples.















CHAPTER 3

DESIGN



In an endeavor to describe a sample of gay teachers, self-report

information was sought from volunteer participants in two parts: a

written questionnaire and a personal interview. The same information

was then gathered from a sample of heterosexual teachers in order to

observe how, if at all, gay teachers differ from heterosexual teachers

on the measures used to assess personality and teacher behaviors.

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was selected to measure

dimensions of femininity and masculinity in all the teachers. These

two sex-role attributes were considered of interest due to a prevailing

stereotype about gays: gay women resemble men and gay men resemble

women (West, 1977, p. 37). Data were collected to examine a possible

basis for these stereotypes.

Various instruments assessing other professional and personality

qualities were considered. The Teacher Characteristics Schedule (TCS)

was chosen because it was specifically designed to describe teachers,

the target population. It also offered measures of numerous and

wide-ranging qualities.















A written questionnaire was composed of the BSRI and a

particularly relevant scales of the TCS. Each teacher completed the

questionnaire individually, at her or his convenience. A separate

interview was conducted with a structured sequence of questions

developed by the researcher. The following delineation of the design

includes descriptions of the samples and the three instruments used to

gather information, as well as the hypotheses used to test that

information.

Instruments

Bem Sex-Role Inventory

Description. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory was developed to measure

a person's endorsement of masculine and feminine personality

characteristics, and therefore to what extent a person can be described

as having "internalized society's sex-typed standards of desirable

behaviors for men and women" (Bem 1974, p. 155). Feminine

characteristics were those selected by female and male judges to be

significantly more desirable for women than men in American society;

masculine characteristics were those judged to be more desirable for

men than women.

The BSRI consists of 60 adjectives: 20 each of "feminine,"

"masculine," and "neutral." A respondent is instructed to indicate on

a 7-point scale how "true of you these various characteristics are." A
















rating of 1 indicates never or almost never true (i.e., low

endorsement); a rating of 7 indicates always or almost always true

(i.e., high endorsement). (The adjectives for the inventory can be

found as Appendix A.)

The feminine and masculine scales are independent of each other.

That is, femininity and masculinity are not conceptualized as ends of a

single bipolar dimension but rather as two distinct dimensions. By

averaging the adjective ratings, a feminine score and a masculine score

are obtained for each respondent.

A person who receives both a feminine and masculine score above

the median is termed androgynous by Bem (1974, 1975). The concept of

psychological androgyny is not a recent development. Beauvoir in 1952

and Jung in 1953 discussed integration of feminine and masculine

personality features (Alter, Note 5). In the last several years, the

women's movement has also evoked a reexamination of what constitutes

femininity and masculinity (Spence, Note 6).

The measurement of androgyny, however, is a fairly new endeavor in

psychology. Two instruments have been used frequently in measuring

femininity and masculinity and therefore androgyny. The Bem Sex-Role

Inventory and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire by Spence,

Helmreich, and Stapps were both published in 1974. The feminine and

masculine scores produced by these instruments are used to classify a















person as to sex-role type. Classification of sex-role types can be

derived by several methods (Bem, 1977; Orlofsky, Aslin & Ginsburg,

1977; Spence & Helmreich, 1979b). Most methods of classification yield

four sex-role types: feminine, masculine, androgynous, and

undifferentiated.

Androgyny as a sex-role type, and indeed the concept of androgyny

itself, are in the formative stage of intellectual and empirical study.

Debate prevails about the meaning of androgyny, its bases and

manifestations, how to assess it, and even how to score the instruments

already designed to assess it (e.g., Bem, 1977, 1979; Kelly & Worell,

1977; Locksley & Colton, 1979; Orlofsky et al., 1977; Spence &

Helmreich, 1979a, 1979b; Strahan, 1975). Because of the ambiguity and

unclear assumptions surrounding the concept of androgyny, the present

study uses feminine and masculine scores--not sex-role types--to

describe participants.

Norms. The original normative data were obtained from college

students in California (Bern, 1974) and have since been replicated on

students from institutions elsewhere (La Torre, 1978; Orlofsky &

Windle, 1978). All students were enrolled in undergraduate psychology

or sociology classes. The normative means and medians are reported in

the results section. It should be noted that the normative sample

could in fact include individuals with a gay orientation.















Reliability and validity

Test-retest reliability for the BSRI was measured in a subsample

of the normative group (Bem, 1974). Both the feminine and masculine

scores produced product-moment correlations of .90. Internal

consistency was estimated by computation of alpha coefficients in two

samples. The results provided alphas of .80 and .82 for femininity

scores and .86 and .86 for masculinity scores.

The validity of the BSRI was tested by administering two other

measures of femininity and masculinity to the normative group (Bem,

1974). The appropriate scales of the California Psychological

Inventory and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey were chosen

because of their previous use in sex role research. None of the

correlations exceeded .25. Bem (1974) concluded that the BSRI is

measuring an aspect of sex roles which is not directly tapped by these

two scales (Bem, 1974).

Teacher Characteristics Schedule

Description. The Teacher Characteristics Schedule (TCS) was the

product of a six-year research project of the American Council on

Education. Its stated purpose was the "accumulation of evidence

permitting extension of understanding of the personal, social, and

intellectual attributes of persons who teach in the schools" (Ryans,

1960, p. 9).

The specific objectives of the research project were first, to

identify and analyze some patterns of teachers' classroom behavior,













attitudes, viewpoints, and emotional and intellectual qualities, and

secondly, to develop suitable paper and pencil instruments for

estimating these patterns. Consequently the TCS reflects correlates

that have proven capable of predicting the major factors of teacher

classroom behavior and of traits such as emotional adjustment (Ryans,

1960, 1971).

The form of the TCS used here, G-70/2, is an updated and extended

revision of the original 1954 schedule (Ryans, 1972). The G-70/2

version has 450 questions representing 19 scales. Each question on the

TCS consists of an inquiry and specified responses from which to

choose. (Sample questions can be found as Appendix B.)

Out of consideration for the teachers who volunteered their time

and efforts to the present study, a shortened version of the TCS was

prepared. Six of the 19 scales were selected as most relevant to the

stated purposes of this study, yielding a total of 195 questions.

The six scales are, with their symbolic notation: value placed on

innovation, change, and "liberal" education/social policy and action

(C); favorable opinions/attitudes about pupils and other school

personnel (R); value placed on religion and religion-associated

morality, conventions, and cultural traditions (Re); concomitants of

general personal/social adjustment (S); viewpoints/beliefs reflecting

commitment or dedication to teaching and professional involvement in

teaching (T); and validity of response, tendency to give responses that














accurately describe the respondent's activities, preferences, opinions,

etc.-avoidance of preponderantly "socially desirable" responses (V).

Norms. The TCS G-70/2 was standardized in 1970 on two randomly

selected, stratified samples (Ryans, 1972). In-service teachers were

selected from all 50 states, stratified on the factors of sex, national

racial heritage, and grade or level of students taught. The total

number of persons with valid scores for all scales was 3,552. Scores

from the normative group are reported in the results section. It

should be noted that the normative sample could in fact include

individuals with a gay orientation.

Reliability and validity. Alpha reliabilities were computed for

all nineteen of the TCS scales; figures were not reported for the

scales by name (Ryans, 1972). Reliabilities of .75 .82 were obtained

for nine scales, of .66 .74 for nine scales, and .58 for one scale.

The only information available on content validity for the TCS was

provided on three scales not used in the present study (Ryans, 1971).

Those coefficients ranged from .2 .4.

Interview

Description. "The flexibility of the interview is, of course, of

greatest value in exploratory studies where the structure of the field

emerges as the investigation proceeds" (Mouly, 1970, p. 265). In order

to obtain information pertinent to the topic of gay teachers, a

structured interview schedule was constructed by the researcher. The

schedule was composed of 24 questions for demographic information and














55 questions regarding the teacher's personal and professional life.

Interviews were conducted in an oral format, on an individual basis.

Most questions were open-ended to accommodate a diverse range of

response.

The interview questions were concerned with several different

areas: self and parents' education, religion, family background,

organizational activities and hobbies, sexual behavior and attitudes,

perception of the development of sexual orientation, teaching behavior

and attitudes, the perceived effects of teachers' sexual orientation on

students, etc.

Determination of Sexual Orientation.

The sexual orientation of gay or heterosexual was assigned by the

use of a standardized scale used extensively in research on sexual

identity. Named after Alfred Kinsey who developed it, the scale

provides ratings of 0 through 6, as follows:

0 exclusively heterosexual

1 almost entirely heterosexual with only incidental homosexual

contacts

2 have more than incidental homosexual contacts but still have

stronger responses to the opposite sex

3 equally homosexual and heterosexual

4 have more than incidental heterosexual contacts but still have

stronger responses to the same sex














5 almost entirely homosexual with only incidental heterosexual

contacts

6 exclusively homosexual

"Contacts" were defined to each participant as physical touching in a

sexual context.

Each participant was asked about mid-way through the interview,

"Using this scale, how would you rate yourself in two ways--first, in

terms of your sexual thoughts and fantasies, and secondly, in terms of

actual sexual behavior." A typed copy of the rating scale was handed

to each participant.

An average of these two ratings was taken as the overall rating of

sexual orientation. No overall rating fell between 2 and 4 on the

scale, indicating that all participants were clearly self-identified as

either gay or heterosexual. The ratings from the scales concurred with

the assignation attributed to each teacher when she or he was asked to

participate in the study.





Hypotheses


The primary purpose of the study was to ascertain existing

differences between gay and heterosexual teachers. In the case of

sex-role attributes (femininity and masculinity) differences between

















females and males within each orientation group were also examined.

The following null hypotheses were formulated and no directions of

differences were expected.

The null hypotheses tested for the BSRI were:

1. There is no significant difference between gay and

heterosexual teachers on feminine scores.

2. There is no significant difference between gay and

heterosexual teachers on masculine scores.

3. There are no significant differences in two-way or three-way

interaction between levels of orientation (gay or

heterosexual), grade level taught (elementary or secondary),

and biological sex (female or male) on feminine scores.

4. There are no significant differences in two-way or three-way

interaction between levels of orientation (gay or

heterosexual), grade taught (elementary or secondary), and

biological sex (female or male) on masculine scores.

5. There are no significant differences between gay and

heterosexual female teachers on feminine and masculine

scores.

6. There are no significant differences between gay and

heterosexual male teachers on feminine and masculine scores.

7. There are no significant differences between female and male

gay teachers on feminine and masculine scores.
















8. There are no significant differences between female and male

heterosexual teachers on feminine and masculine scores.

9. The gay sample means do not differ significantly from the

national means on the feminine and masculine scales.

10. The heterosexual sample means do not differ significantly

from the national means on the feminine and masculine

scales.

The null hypotheses tested for the TCS (G-70/2) were:

11. There are no significant differences between gay and

heterosexual teachers on each of the six scales.

12. There are no significant differences in two-way or three-way

interaction between levels of orientation (gay or

heterosexual), grade taught (elementary or secondary), and

biological sex (female or male) on each of the six scales.

13. The gay sample means do not differ significantly from the

national normative means on each of the six scales.

14. The heterosexual sample means do not differ significantly

from the national normative means on each of the six scales.

No specific null hypotheses were proposed for the interview data.

Questions with multiple choice responses were tested for significant

differences when the disparity between gay and heterosexual responses

was great. Most of the interview data was amenable to simple

nonstatistical interpretation.















Samples


The volunteer gay participants were obtained first. Then

heterosexual teachers were obtained who approximated the gay group on

the dimensions of age, sex, and number of years in teaching. Matching

was undertaken to minimize differences which may have been a function

of these variables and thereby hopefully maximize differences which may

be a function of sexual orientation.

Neither group of teachers was intended to be a representative

sample. Comparison of these teachers responses to normative data,

however, indicates that both groups are similar to national groups of

teachers and adults.


Description

A total of 60 teachers participated in the study: 30 gay and 30

heterosexual. There were 59 white teachers and one black teacher. In

the gay group there were 22 females and 8 males; 12 elementary teachers

and 18 secondary; 26 work in public schools, 4 in private. In the

heterosexual group there were 20 females and 10 males; 16 elementary

teachers and 14 secondary; 27 work in public schools, 3 in private.

The mean, standard deviation, and range for the number of years

being a teacher are: gay group--11.12, 8.06, 0.5 31; heterosexual















group--8.28, 6.68, 0.5 28. The mean, standard deviation, and range

for age of the teachers are: gay group--36.97, 9.63, 23 63;

heterosexual group--34.27, 8.91, 24 58.

The distribution of subject areas taught by the teachers is: all

areas--3 gay, 12 heterosexual; special education--5, 3; cultural arts--

5, 2; vocational arts and sciences--i, 1; reading and English--3, 2;

physical education--8, 2; math and sciences--3, 3; social sciences--2,

5. Distribution of the highest educational level obtained by the

teachers is: bachelor degree--12 gay, 14 heterosexual; some

post-graduate work--1, 3; master's degree--13, 11; specialist's

degree--3, 2; Ph.D.--1, 0.

Marital status of the gay group is: currently married 1, divorced

8, never married 21. Five gay teachers have children of their own.

For the heterosexual group the marital status is: currently married 17,

divorced 5, never married 8. Thirteen of the heterosexual teachers

have children of their own.


Obtaining gay participants

A guarantee of absolute anonymity was essential for approaching

gay teachers with a request to take part in the study. This assurance

was provided to allay fears of "exposure" which would likely result in

personal discomfort and/or loss of employment. The usual procedure for

obtaining signatures of the participants was waived by the University's

Human Subjects Committee.














Several methods were used in obtaining gay teachers for this

study. The most frequent approach was through a personal referral by

another gay teacher or a close friend. Another method was the use of

research announcements--brief descriptions of the study, including a

statement about anonymity. These announcements were sent to two

publications produced primarily for gay individuals (one national and

one local publication). Two participants contacted the researcher in

response to the announcement appearing in the national publication.

Research announcements were also sent to three gay community service

organizations in Miami and one in Gainesville; three to Metropolitan

Community Churches in Jacksonville, Miami, and Tampa; and one was

posted at a Gainesville health institution. None of these provided any

participants.

Five of the gay teachers who participated were known personally to

the researcher and were contacted directly. Six teachers, who were

contacted either through referral or by the researcher, declined to

take part. Two other teachers initially showed a willingness to

participate but failed to reply to follow-up inquiries by the

researcher.


Obtaining heterosexual participants

The heterosexual teachers were also primarily obtained through

personal referral by another teacher or a friend. A secondary source















was graduate education classes at the University of Florida during the

summer session, when teachers from around the state enroll for

professional continuing education.

Three of the heterosexual teachers were known personally to the

researcher and were contacted directly. One teacher agreed to

participate but never completed the questionnaire.



Procedure


Gay sample

Gay participants were fully informed of the purpose and nature of

the study from the initial contact. They were also told of the

anticipated time involved and of the two parts: the questionnaire and

the interview. Gay teachers were interviewed first and then given the

questionnaire for later completion.

The interview took place in a setting agreeable to both the gay

teacher and the researcher; privacy and lack of interruptions were

required. Usually the setting was the individual's home. In a few

instances a classroom, office, or the researcher's home were used.

After the interview, discussion of the study was invited. Then the

questionnaire was left with the participant, along with a

self-addressed, stamped envelope for return to the researcher.














Heterosexual sample

The heterosexual teachers were asked to participate in a study on

the characteristics of teachers. They were told of the anticipated

time involved and of the two parts. Due to the highly controversial

nature of the topic of homosexuality, stating the full purpose of the

study at the outset would likely alter a participant's responses. For

this reason, the questionnaire was administered first, without

divulging the comparison-to-gay-teachers aspect of the study.

The American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles manual

states, "The scientific purposes of research may invite the use of

deception for a variety of reasons, one of those being when it may be

demonstrated that the research objectives cannot be realized without

deception" (1973, p. 37). Deceiving the heterosexual teachers while

obtaining their agreement to participate is a serious matter. However,

the ethical consideration of withholding information from participants

here is not destructive. Since no treatment is given to any of the

teachers, but merely the collection of self-report data, the goal of

acquiring unbiased responses on the questionnaire justifies the use of

deception.

Each of the heterosexual teachers was given a questionnaire upon

agreeing to participate in the study. After its completion, a date was

arranged for the interview. At the beginning of that meeting--before

the questionnaire was received by the researcher--the full purpose and















nature of the study was revealed. Explanations were provided of the

necessity for the deception and use of the participant's responses as

comparison data. Any questions about the study were answered.

At this point the teacher was given the choice of retaining or

submitting her or his questionnaire responses for inclusion into the

study. Special care was taken to avoid exerting pressure while the

teacher made that choice. Submission was tendered in every instance,

and the meeting proceeded with the interview.

The deception was revealed before the interview rather than after

since questions relating to relationships and sexuality were asked

therein. The deception, therefore, affected only the questionnaire

data from the heterosexual teachers--that portion which is more

indicative of professional behaviors and attitudes rather than of

personal behaviors and attitudes.


C scale problem

The written questionnaire distributed to all participants omitted

five questions of the Teacher Characteristics C scale. This error was

not discovered until all the questionnaires had been submitted and

calculations completed. A follow-up telephone call or letter (with

enclosed self-addressed, stamped post card) was successful in reaching

56 of the 60 teachers and obtaining their responses to the missing five


questions.











61





Scale statistics were recalculated with the complete C scale

responses for those teachers who answered the omitted items. Those

teachers who could not be reached (2 gay and 2 heterosexual) were

deleted from the calculations of the C scale.















CHAPTER 4

RESULTS


Data were obtained from two samples (n = 30 for each) of

teachers with gay and heterosexual orientations. The data were self-

report responses from personality and teacher behavior inventories.

This chapter reports compilation of those responses and appropriate

analyses.

The data were analyzed variously to test the null hypotheses

presented in the previous chapter. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were

calculated using the scores of the questionnaire measures as the

dependent variables. The independent variables were sexual orientation

(gay or heterosexual), grade level taught (elementary or secondary),

and sex (female or male). T tests were computed for examining the

factor of sex within each sexual orientation on the feminine and

masculine variables. T statistics and interval estimates were used to

compare scores of the teacher samples to normative scores from a

national sample.

The results are organized into three sections: one for each of the

instruments used to obtain the data. Each section for the standardized

















instruments contains the null hypotheses appropriate to the instrument

and the results of testing each hypothesis. For the interview,

tabulated answers to the questions are given, showing the results of

statistical tests for significant differences where appropriate.


Bem Sex-Role Inventory

As described earlier, the feminine and masculine scores are based

on endorsement of the adjectives of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI).

Scores range from 1 (low endorsement) to 7 (high endorsement). For the

gay sample, the feminine mean = 5.15, with a standard deviation (SD) =

0.49; the masculine mean = 5.36, SD = 0.66. For the heterosexual

sample, the feminine mean = 4.92, SD = 0.60; the masculine mean = 4.92,

SD = 0.65. The means from the teachers sampled here compare to Bem's

normative sample of feminine mean = 4.85 and masculine mean = 4.90.

To test the first four null hypotheses, one-way, two-way, and

three-way ANOVA were performed. Feminine and masculine scores were the

dependent variables. In testing these hypotheses, the ANOVA for

unweighted cell means were calculated. The alpha level for statistical

significance was set at 0.05.

Hypothesis 1. There is no significant difference between gay and

heterosexual teachers on feminine scores. The computed F value for

this hypothesis was 5.86. The probability of obtaining a computed F

value this large was 0.019 assuming the null hypothesis to be true.















Since the probability value was less than the 0.05 level, the results

indicate that the null hypothesis should be rejected. For the feminine

scale, gay teachers (M = 5.15) scored significantly higher than

heterosexual teachers (M = 4.92).

Hypothesis 2. There is no significant difference between gay and

heterosexual teachers on masculine scores. The computed F value for

this hypothesis was 3.09. The probability value was 0.08. Since the

probability value was greater than the 0.05 level, the results indicate

that the null hypothesis should not be rejected.

Hypothesis 3. There are no significant differences in two-way or

three-way interaction between levels of orientation (gay or

heterosexual), grade level taught (elementary or secondary), and sex

(female or male) on feminine scores. The computed F values for the

interactions are given in Table 1. Since all of the probability values

are greater than the 0.05 level, the results indicate that the null

hypothesis should not be rejected.

Hypothesis 4. There are no significant differences in two-way or

three-way interaction between levels of orientation (gay or

heterosexual), grade level taught (elementary or secondary), and sex

(female or male) on masculine scores. The computed F values for the

interactions are given in Table 2. Since all of the probability values

are greater than the 0.05 level, the results indicate that the null

hypothesis should not be rejected.
















Table 1. Analysis of
variable.


variance with feminine scores as the dependent


Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade

Gay Elem.
Gay Sec.
Het. Elem.
Het. Sec.

Sex x Grade

Female Elem.
Female Sec.
Male Elem.
Male Sec.

Sex x Orientation


Female Gay
Female Het.
Male Gay
Male Het.


Orientation x Grade x Sex


Gay Elem. Fem.
Gay Elem. Male
Gay Sec. Fem.
Gay Sec. Male
Het. Elem. Fern.
Het. Elem. Male
Het. Sec. Fern.
Het. Sec. Male


p = 0.05 two-tailed test


0.19


0.663


0.403


5.167
5.136
5.109
4.696



5.165
4.979
4.990
4.892



5.091
5.070
5.306
4.610



5.128
5.283
5.065
5.320
5.189
4.550
4.791
4.625


0.671
0.353
0.599
0.535



0.631
0.464
0.606
0.535



0.531
0.610
0.357
0.458



0.742
0.501
0.354
0.311
0.579
0.566
0.642
0.472


3.22


0.30


0.079


0.584















Table 2. Analysis of variance with masculine scores
variable.


as the dependent


Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade

Gay Elem.
Gay Sec.
Het. Elem.
Het. Sec.

Sex x Grade

Female Elem.
Female Sec.
Male Elem.
Male Sec.

Sex x Orientation

Female Gay
Female Het.
Male Gay
Male Het.

Orientation x Grade x Sex


Gay Elem. Fem.
Gay Elem. Male
Gay Sec. Fem.
Gay Sec. Male
Het. Elem. Fem.
Het. Elem. Male
Het. Sec. Fem.
Het. Sec. Male


p = 0.05 two-tailed test


0.35


0.556


0.192


0.317


5.113
5.531
4.728
5.139



4.920
5.287
4.770
5.465



5.375
4.768
5.331
5.225



5.233
4.750
5.473
5.680
4.718
4.800
4.883
5.331


0.833
0.463
0.626
0.630



0.704
0.572
0.939
0.568



0.595
0.603
0.853
0.668



0.706
1.249
0.511
0.297
0.648
0.636
0.516
0.670


0.686















The next four null hypotheses examine the differences on feminine

and masculine scores of the teachers divided in another manner. For

all females and then all males, orientation was examined as a possible

significant variable. Next, for all gays and then all heterosexuals,

sex was examined as a possible significant variable. Table 3 gives the

means and standard deviations of feminine and masculine scores within

these divisions.

To test the four hypotheses below, t tests for independent samples

were performed. These t tests require that the within group variance

be equal. The hypotheses that the variances were equal were tested by

calculating the ratio of the variances and using a standard F

distribution. None of the hypotheses of equal variance were rejected

at the 0.10 level. Consequently the following tests for the null

hypotheses assume equal variances.

Hypothesis 5. There are no significant differences between gay

and heterosexual female teachers on feminine scores and masculine

scores. The t statistic for feminine scores was 0.119, with a

probability of a greater absolute value of t = 0.906 (df = 40). Since

the probability value was greater than the 0.05 level chosen for

statistical significance, the results indicate that gay and

heterosexual female teachers did not have significantly different

feminine scores.













Table 3. Means and standard deviations of feminine and masculine scores:
by orientation within sex and by sex within orientation.




Independent Feminine Feminine Masculine Masculine
variable n mean st. dev. mean st. dev.


Females

Gay 22 5.091 0.531 5.375 0.595
Het. 20 5.070 0.610 4.768 0.603

Males

Gay 8 5.306 0.357 5.331 0.853
Het. 10 4.610 0.458 5.225 0.667

Gays

Female 22 5.091 0.531 5.375 0.595
Male 8 5.306 0.357 5.331 0.853

Heterosexuals

Female 20 5.070 0.610 4.768 0.603
Male 10 4.610 0.458 5.225 0.667



*Significant difference at p = 0.05















The t statistic for masculine scores was 3.285, pr > t = 0.002,

(df = 40). Since the probability value was less than 0.05, the results

indicate that the gay and heterosexual female teachers did have

significantly different masculine scores. The mean scores show the

direction of the significance. Gay female teachers (M = 5.375) more

highly endorsed masculine adjectives than did heterosexual female

teachers (M = 4.768).

Hypothesis 6. There are no significant differences between gay

and heterosexual male teachers on feminine scores and masculine scores.

The t statistic for feminine scores was 3.521, pr > t = 0.003 (df =

16). Since the probability value is less than 0.05, the results

indicate that the gay and heterosexual male teachers did have

significantly different feminine scores. The mean scores show the

direction of the significance. Gay male teachers (M = 5.306) more

highly endorsed feminine adjectives than did heterosexual male teachers

(M = 4.61).

The t statistic for masculine scores was 0.297, pr > It I = 0.770,

(df = 16). Since the probability value was greater than 0.05, the

results indicate that gay and heterosexual male teachers did not have

significantly different masculine scores.

Hypothesis 7. There are no significant differences between female

and male gay teachers on feminine scores and masculine scores. The t

statistic for feminine scores was -1.057, pr > It = 0.300, (df = 28).

Since the probability value was greater than 0.05, the results indicate
















that the female and male gay teachers did not have significantly

different feminine scores.

The t statistic for masculine scores was 0.158, pr > It I= 0.875,

(df = 28). Since the probability value was greater than 0.05, the

results indicate that the female and male gay teachers did not have

significantly different masculine scores.

Hypothesis 8. There are no significant differences between female

and male heterosexual teachers on feminine scores and masculine scores.

The t statistic for feminine scores was 2.099, pr > It| = 0.045, (df =

28). Since the probability value was less than 0.05, the results

indicate that female and male heterosexual teachers did have

significantly different feminine scores. The mean scores show the

direction of the significance. Female heterosexual teachers (M = 5.07)

more highly endorsed feminine adjectives than did male heterosexual

teachers (M = 4.61).

The t statistic for masculine scores was -1.893, pr > I t = 0.067,

(df = 28). Since the probability value is greater than 0.05, the

results indicate that female and male heterosexual teachers did not

have significantly different masculine scores.

The following two null hypotheses examine how different are the

gay and heterosexual teacher samples from Bem's normative sample. T

statistics were computed, and interval estimates calculated for

inclusion at an 0.95 confidence interval. Table 4 gives the means and














Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and medians of gay, heterosexual, and
national samples on feminine and masculine scales.





National Sample Gay Teachers Heterosexual Teachers

(n = 665) (n = 30) (n = 30)


Feminine Scale

Mean 4.85 5.148 4.917
St. dev. -* 0.494 0.598
Median 4.76 5.15 5.05

Masculine Scale

Mean 4.9 5.363 4.92
St. dev. --* 0.658 0.651
Medican 4.89 5.50 5.00



*Standard deviations not available for national sample.
















standard deviations of feminine and masculine scales for the gay and

heterosexual samples and the national sample.

Hypothesis 9. The gay sample means do not differ significantly

from the national means on the feminine and masculine scales. The

computed t value for feminine means, with interval estimates, = 3.314

(0.114, 0.482). The computed t value for masculine means, with

interval estimates = 3.86 (0.218, 0.709). The critical t value (df =

29) at the 0.05 level = 2.045. Therefore the null hypothesis was

rejected. Gay teachers (M = 5.148) scored significantly higher on the

feminine scale than the normative sample (M = 4.85). Gay teachers (M =

5.363) also scored significantly higher on the masculine scale than the

normative sample (M = 4.90).

Hypothesis 10. The heterosexual sample means do not differ

significantly from the national means on the feminine and masculine

scales. The computed t value for feminine means, with interval

estimates, = 0.612 (-0.156, 0.290). The computed t value for masculine

means, with interval estimates, = 0.168 (-0.223, 0.263). The critical

t value (df = 29) at the 0.05 level = 2.045. Therefore the null

hypothesis is not rejected. Heterosexual teachers did not score

significantly different than the normative sample on both feminine and

masculine scales.

Teacher Characteristics Schedule

Questions for the six selected scales of the Teacher

Characteristics Schedule (TCS) were administered to all teachers.

















Abbreviated descriptions of the scales, mean scores, and standard

deviations of the gay and heterosexual teacher samples are given in

Table 5.

The first null hypothesis for the TCS examines the differences

between gay and heterosexual teachers on their scores for each of the

six scales. The next hypothesis examines the interaction of the main

effects of orientation, grade taught, and sex on scores of the six

scales. Two-way and three-way ANOVA were calculated to test for

significant differences. Each hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level

of significance.

Hypothesis 11. There are no significant differences between gay

and heterosexual teachers on each of the six scales. The computed F

values and the probabilities of a greater F value for each scale are

also given in Table 5. Since each of the probability values was

greater than the 0.05 level, the results indicate that gay and

heterosexual teachers did not differ on TCS scale scores.

Hypothesis 12. There are no significant differences in two-way or

three-way interaction between levels of orientation (gay or

heterosexual), grade taught (elementary or secondary), and sex (female

or male) on each of the six scales. The computed F values for the

interactions, along with the means and standard deviations, are given

in Tables 6-11 (one table for each scale).














Table 5. Means, standard deviations, F
the TCS scales.


values, and probability values of


Scale Gay Teachersa Hetero. Teachers F value Prob > F

Change, liberalism (C) 1.47 0.231


Mean
St. dev.


20.393
4.491


18.607
5.653


Approving of pupils
and others (R)

Mean
St. dev.

Religion and associated
morality (Re)


Mean
St. dev.


1.47 0.230


32.033
5.768


31.000
6.497


3.26 0.077


7.633
2.930


9.000
3.667


Social/personal
adjustments (S)

Mean
St. dev.


educationn to teaching (T)

Mean
St. dev.

validity of response (V)

Mean
St. dev.


0.77 0.386


19.933
4.540



26.133
4.725



24.533
3.501


19.100
5.169



25.467
5.894



25.300
3.631


0.77 0.384


1.35 0.250


n = 30, except where n = 28
= 0.05 two-tailed test















Table 6. Analysis of variance
variable.


with C scale scores as the dependent


Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade

Gay Elem.
Gay Sec.
Het. Elem.
Het. Sec.

Sex x Grade

Female Elem.
Female Sec.
Male Elem.
Male Sec.

Orientation x Sex

Gay Female
Gay Male
Het. Female
Het. Male

Orientation x Grade x Sex


Gay Elem. Ferm.
Gay Elem. Male
Gay Sec. Fem.
Gay Sec. Male
Het. Elem. Fem.
Het. Elem. Male
Het. Sec. Fem.
Het. Sec. Male


0.01


0.944


0.815


21.273
19.824
19.625
17.250



20.391
19.000
19.750
18.364



20.714
19.429
18.800
18.125



21.333
21.000
20.250
18.800
19.786
18.500
16.500
18.000


4.839
4.305
6.238
4.673



5.695
4.406
6.344
5.005



4.797
3.552
5.454
6.490



5.385
1.414
4.495
4.087
6.002
10.607
3.209
6.033


0.08


0.30


0.779


0.584















Table 7. Analysis of variance with R scale scores as
variable.


the dependent


Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade

Gay Elem.
Gay Sec.
Het. Elem.
Het. Sec.

Sex x Grade

Female Elem.
Female Sec.
Male Elem.
Male Sec.

Orientation x Sex

Gay Female
Gay Male
Het. Female
Het. Male

Orientation x Grade x Sex


Gay Elem. Fem.
Gay Elem. Male
Gay Sec. Fem.
Gay Sec. Male
Het. Elem. Fem.
Het. Elem. Male
Het. Sec. Fem.
Het. Sec. Male


1.05


0.310


0.791


0.373


30.917
32.778
33.500
28.143



32.739
31.684
30.800
29.385



32.091
31.875
32.450
28.100



30.333
32.667
33.308
31.400
34.286
28.000
28.167
28.125


5.854
5.755
5.610
6.431



5.730
6.281
6.261
6.577



5.895
5.793
6.126
6.540



5.612
7.506
5.991
5.459
5.441
4.243
5.845
7.240


0.169















Table 8. Analysis of variance with Re scale scores as the dependent
variable.




Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade

Gay Elem.
Gay Sec.
Het. Elem.
Het. Sec.

Sex x Grade

Female Elem.
Female Sec.
Male Elem.
Male Sec.

Orientation x Sex

Gay Female
Gay Male
Het. Female
Het. Male


Orientation x Grade x Sex


Gay Elem. Fem.
Gay Elem. Male
Gay Sec. Fem.
Gay Sec. Male
Het. Elem. Fem.
Het. Elem. Male
Het. Sec. Fem.
Het. Sec. Male


0.75


6.333
8.500
8.375
9.714



7.565
8.316
7.200
10.007



7.682
7.500
8.150
10.700



6.556
5.667
8.462
8.600
8.214
9.500
8.000
11.00


2.839
2.728
3.649
3.688



3.628
3.110
2.588
3.121



3.092
2.619
3.746
2.983



3.206
1.528
2.876
2.608
3.847
2.121
3.847
3.207


0.44


0.392


0.508


0.227


0.03


0.868














Table 9. Analysis of variance with S scale scores as the dependent
variable.




Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade

Gay Elem.
Gay Sec.
Het. Elem.
Het. Sec.

Sex x Grade

Female Elem.
Female Sec.
Male Elem.
Male Sec.

Orientation x Sex

Gay Female
Gay Male
Het. Female
Het. Male

Orientation x Grade x Sex


Elem. Fem.
Elem. Male
Sec. Fem.
Sec. Male
Elem. Fem.
Elem. Male
Sec. Fem.
Sec. Male


0.54


20.417
19.611
17.688
20.714



19.087
18.105
17.800
23.000



19.591
20.875
17.600
22.100



21.111
18.333
18.538
22.400
17.786
17.000
17.167
23.375


4.078
4.913
4.771
5.298



4.532
4.701
5.404
4.103



4.372
5.167
4.684
4.977



3.219
6.429
4.858
4.278
4.870
5.657
4.622
4.241


0.464


0.022


0.56


0.00


0.456


0.951














Table 10. Analysis of
variable.


variance with T scale scores as the dependent


Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade 2.06 0.157

Gay Elem. 12 24.750 4.901
Gay Sec. 18 27.056 4.505
Het. Elem. 16 26.563 5.428
Het. Sec. 14 24.214 6.351

Sex x Grade 0.46 0.502

Female Elem. 23 25.783 5.493
Female Sec. 19 25.211 4.022
Male Elem. 5 25.800 4.025
Male Sec. 13 26.692 7.216

Orientation x Sex 1.12 0.294

Gay Female 22 25.182 4.553
Gay Male 8 28.750 4.432
Het. Female 20 25.900 5.220
Het. Male 10 24.600 7.291

Orientation x Grade x Sex 0.04 0.839

Gay Elem. Fern. 9 24.333 5.408
Gay Elem. Male 3 26.000 3.464
Gay Sec. Fem. 13 25.769 3.982
Gay Sec. Male 5 30.400 4.393
Het. Elem. Fem. 14 26.714 5.539
Het. Elem. Male 2 25.500 6.364
Het. Sec. Fem. 6 24.000 4.195
Het. Sec. Male 8 24.375 7.891














Table 11. Analysis of
variable.


variance with V scale scores as the dependent


Source n Mean St. Dev. F value Prob > F


Orientation x Grade

Gay Elem.
Gay Sec.
Het. Elem.
Het. Sec.

Sex x Grade

Female Elem.
Female Sec.
Male Elem.
Male Sec.

Orientation x Sex

Gay Female
Gay Male
Het. Female
Het. Male

Orientation x Grade x Sex


Elem. Fem.
Elem. Male
Sec. Fem.
Sec. Male
Elem. Fern.
Elem. Male
Sec. Fem.
Sec. Male


0.08


0.779


0.370


0.642


0.901


24.417
24.611
25.688
24.857



25.261
25.579
24.600
23.462



25.091
23.000
25.750
24.400



24.667
23.667
25.385
22.600
25.643
26.000
26.000
24.000


0.82


0.22


0.02


3.895
3.328
3.198
4.148



3.695
2.775
2.702
4.465



3.191
4.071
3.416
4.061



4.243
3.215
2.364
4.827
3.411
1.414
3.742
4.472
















Only one of the probability values was less than the 0.05 level:

the interaction of sex and grade on the social/personal adjustment

scale. That F value was 5.57, pr > I I= 0.022. The significant

difference can be accounted for by examining the means of the sex x

grade groups. Male elementary teachers (M = 17.8) scored significantly

lower than male secondary teachers (MI = 23.0). Female elementary and

secondary teachers did not influence this interaction effect. On the

basis of the one significant interaction, the results indicate that the

null hypothesis should be rejected. However, sexual orientation was

not a significant factor on the adjustment scale scores.

The next two null hypotheses examine how different were the gay

and heterosexual teacher samples from Ryans' national normative sample.

T statistics and interval estimates were calculated. The interval

estimates were computed for inclusion at an 0.95 confidence interval.

Hypothesis 13. The gay sample means do not differ significantly

from the national normative means on each of the six scales. Table 12

gives the computed t values with interval estimates for each scale.

The relevant critical t values at the 0.05 level are also included.

For gay teachers, four of the six computed t values exceeded the

appropriate critical values. Since four of the sample means are

significantly different from the normative means, the results indicate

that the null hypothesis should be rejected.









Table 12. Computed t values (with interval estimates) of comparing gay
sample and heterosexual sample means with national normative
means on TCS scales.




National
Scale Gay Teachersa Het. Teachers Sample


Change, liberalism (C)


Me an
t value
(int. est.)

Approving of pupils
and others (R)


Mean
t value
(int. est.)


Religion and associated
morality (Re)

Mean
t value
(int. est.)

Social/personal
adjustments (S)


20.393
4.137
(1.768,5.248)


32.033
0.806
(-1.304,3.002)*


7.633
-8.082
(-5.417,-3.229)*


18.607
1.612
(-0.470,3.914)


31.000
-0.155
(-2.609,2.241)




9.000
-4.416
(-4.324,-1.588)*


Me an
t value
(int. est.)


Dedication to teaching (T)

Mean
t value
(int. est.)

Validity of response (V)


Mean
t value
(int. est.)


19.933
3.015
(0.804,4.194)*



26.133
-3.439
(-4.732,-1.202)*



24.533
U.989
(-0.679,1.939)


19.100
1.765
(-0.264,3.596)



25.467
-3.377
(-5.833,-1.433)*



25.300
2.11
(0.044,2.756)*


16.885


31.184


11.956


17.434


29.100


23.901


an = 30, except, where n = 28
*Significant at p = 0.05 two-tailed test; critical t values:
(df = 27) t i = 2.052; (df = 29) t = 2.045
















Elaborating on the values of Table 12, the gay teachers can be

described as significantly more open to change than the normative

teachers. The means are 20.296 vs. 16.885, with a 1.77 to 5.25

confidence interval estimate. Likewise, the gay teachers can also be

described as less religious (M = 7.633 vs. 11.956), more

socially/personally adjusted (M = 19.933 vs. 17.434), and less

dedicated to teaching (M = 26.133 vs. 29.100) than teachers in the

normative sample.

Hypothesis 14. The heterosexual sample means do not differ

significantly from the national normative means on each of the six

scales. Table 12 gives the computed t values with interval estimates

for each scale, as well as relevant critical t values.

For heterosexual teachers, three of the six computed t values

exceeded the appropriate critical values. Since three of the sample

means were significantly different from the normative means, the

results indicate that the null hypothesis should be rejected. The

heterosexual teachers can be described as significantly less religious

(M = 9.000 vs. 11.956), less dedicated to teaching (M = 25.467 vs.

29.100), and more prone to give valid responses (M = 25.300 vs. 23.901)

than teachers in the normative sample.

A word of caution needs to be stated about the likelihood of

making a Type I error (i.e., rejecting a true hypothesis) with these

results. The probability of making at least one Type I error per

hypothesis equals the number of statistical tests performed multiplied















by the level of significance at which each was tested. For the BSRI,

that probability would be 7 x 0.05 = 0.35, for each of the two scales

in the ANOVA testing. For the within variable groupings of orientation

and sex, the probability would be 4 x 0.05 = 0.20. For the TCS, the

probability would be 7 x 0.05 = 0.35 for each of the six scales. There

may not have been any Type I errors committed, but it is possible that

there were.


Interview

Not all of the information acquired by the interview is reported

in this paper. Most of the open-ended questions elicited responses

which were difficult to quantify and those responses were not compiled.

The reported interview questions are presented below with the teachers'

responses tabulated. In a few instances the number does not total 30

for each teacher group. The missing individuals reflect a failure on

the part of the researcher to ask the question either originally or in

clarifying an indirect answer.

In reporting the tabulated answers, comments are included whenever

they are elucidating. These comments are not necessarily

representative of the groups but rather indicate the range of responses

given by the gay and heterosexual teachers.

Question 1. Do you now subscribe to any religious faith? The

answers were tabulated by the three broad categories prevalent in our















culture including a category for "other." The answers were (gay and

heterosexual responses respectively): no 15, 13; Protestant 7, 13;

Jewish 2, 0; Catholic 5, 3; and other 1, 1 (who indicated spirituality

and Unitarian, respectively).

For the next question there was a list of categories from which to

choose. The categories but not the rating numbers were read to the

participant.

Question 2. In the traditional sense, do you consider yourself to

be extremely religious (rating of 4), fairly to very religious (3),

average interest in religion (2), slightly religious (1), or not at all

religious (0). The mean rating for gay teachers = 1.4, SD = 1.303.

The mean rating for heterosexual teachers = 1.6, SD = 1.248.

The scale for the next question regarding sexual orientation was

typed on a sheet of paper. The sheet was handed to each participant as

the question was being asked. (A copy of the scale in its entirety can

be found in the Design chapter.)

Question 3. Using this scale, how would you rate yourself in two

ways: first, in terms of your sexual thoughts and fantasies, and

secondly, in terms of actual sexual behavior? The tabulated answers

for fantasy ratings are (gay and heterosexual responses respectively):

exclusively heterosexual 0, 20; almost entirely heterosexual (etc.) 0,

7; stronger responses to the opposite sex (etc.) 1, 2; equally

homosexual and heterosexual 0, 0; stronger responses to the same sex















(etc.) 2, 0; almost entirely homosexual (etc.) 15, 1; exclusively

homosexual 10, 0. Two gay teachers said the scale did not fit their

fantasies and they could not choose a rating.

The tabulated answers for actual behavior ratings are (gay and

heterosexual responses respectively): exclusively heterosexual 0, 27;

almost entirely heterosexual (etc.) 0, 3; stronger responses to the

opposite sex (etc.) 0, 0; equally homosexual and heterosexual 0, 0;

stronger responses to the same sex (etc.) 0, 0; almost entirely

homosexual (etc.) 5, 0; exclusively homosexual 25, 0.

Question 4. Were you influenced by any of your teachers in the

development of your sexual identity? The tabulated answers are (gay

and heterosexual responses respectively): yes 1, 2; no or not that I'm

aware of 29, 25; don't know 0, 2. One heterosexual teacher, a female,

gave a yes and no reply: "If poise and attractiveness is part of sexual

identity, yes. I modelled myself periodically after female teachers,

was influenced in being around them. Otherwise, no." Her response was

not counted.

One "don't know" teacher (heterosexual) said, "I'm not real sure.

It could be either way. . Its hard to say if they influenced you."

The other said, "I never thought about it, who would influence. . I

really don't know."

The comments accompanying the "yes" responses are: (gay teacher)

"Three of us gals used to hang around her [high school biology teacher]















and her lover. . they took care of me, were dear, dear friends. But

I never saw their situation as a possibility for me until much later.

I never did talk about it [being gay] with her [the teacher]. . .

they [teacher and lover] weren't affectionate with each other around

us, but very caring"; (heterosexual teachers) "In a negative way by

nuns"; "we always practiced and tried so hard to be perfect little

ladies because this was what he [5th grade teacher] seemed to get the

most pleasure from."

Some of the comments accompanying the "no" responses are: (gay

teachers) "the teacher was just the boss"; "I admired my teachers but

they had no part in me becoming gay"; "I never even thought teachers

were real people, that they just folded up behind their desks at

night"; "teachers taught their subjects"; "I wasn't influenced but was

supported after I came to the realization myself"; "I was aware then

[only in college] that gayness existed"; "I've even tried to look back

like on some of my teachers, and think maybe was there something along

the line that would have caused me to be homosexual"; (heterosexual

teachers) "I think its more friends and parents"; "not as far as

sexuality but [for] other things"; "I used to fantasize a bit about an

8th grade teacher but that was it"; "I wasn't influenced too much by

any of my teachers, to tell you the truth"; "In fact, I don't remember

most of them; the lady teachers weren't that feminine, and I didn't

identify with somebody I had to put up with for a little while."














Question 5. Is sex talked about in your classes? The responses

were (gay and heterosexual responses respectively): yes 16, 18; no 14,

10. The answers for the most part were a function of what subject area

was being taught. The "yes" responses tended to come from social

science and health classes, and those classes which met in informal

groupings, like art and physical education. The "no" responses tended

to come from English, math, and other less personal subject areas.

Almost half of all teachers who responded "yes" indicated that the

occurrence was not frequent and/or occurred only when the students

broached the matter themselves. Some of the comments accompanying the

"yes" responses are: (gay teachers) "I try not to join in those

discussions"; "[in the context of] living together, solving problems,

and building relationships. . There's not anything we [avoid].

. We've talked with girls in the classroom who were giving birth,

certain girls have made up their minds to have abortions in here. ..

We talk about venereal disease when we need to"; "I separate the boys

and the girls [when we discuss reproduction]"; (heterosexual teachers)

"a little bit in evolution and history--an intellectual approach";

"it's constantly referred to indirectly and I try to--if there's a

question that's asked about sexual behavior--deal with the question";

"it really does have to be discussed. I know the little bit of

discussion my parents had with me led me to believe that you're not

supposed to do it until you're married. . .I don't want my [own]

children put in that kind of bind. . .the emotions of sex are















completely different than marriage [which] calls for so many other

demands and traits: faithfulness, loyalty, and really being able to

pull together in the long run."

Some comments accompanying "no" responses are: (gay teachers)

"they still have not gotten that far in this country"; (heterosexual

teachers) "nothing of major consequence . occasionally dirty words

will come up with the children"; "for the most part [no], sometimes

reproduction will come up, in natural experience."

Question 6. Do you discuss [the topic of] sexual preference or

identity in your classes? The responses were (gay and heterosexual

teachers respectively): yes 8, 9; no 22, 20.

Some comments accompanying "yes" responses are: (gay teachers) "I

let them know that I don't condemn anyone if they are homosexual;

that's not something you consider when you measure a man. . but I

don't defend them [homosexuals] as vigorously as I did before Anita

Bryant"; "only when they ask questions"; "the kids discuss it, I

don't"; "they brought up transsexualism on their t.v. show; if

something comes up . I will talk about it"; (heterosexual teachers)

"it seems to come up most in relation to current events"; "most of the

students have the same ideas as the coaches . that homosexuality is

wrong."

Some comments accompanying "no" responses are: (gay teachers)

"but it's gonna happen--they're getting more open now"; "I've never had















a kid approach me about any crisis as far as which they prefer"; "I

don't know that I would include this to any degree in a sex education

course, except to just merely touch on it, for the benefit of the boys

who are interacting"; "its mentioned only when boys tease each other";

(heterosexual teachers) "one little boy called another little boy gay

one day, so I know they're aware of it in 3rd grade"; "they're too

young for that"; "[but] they make derogatory comments about

homosexuality."

Question 7. Do you think that you can influence the development

of sexual identity in your students? The responses were (gay and

heterosexual teachers respectively): yes 6, 11; no 19, 9; don't know 5,

7. A chi square test of independence was calculated on the "yes" and

"no" responses; "don't know" was eliminated from consideration because

those individuals did not give a definitive answer. The responses were

found to be significantly different for gay and heterosexual teachers.

The computed 2 = 4.543; the critical value was 2 = 3.841, (df =

1).

Some comments accompanying the "yes" responses were: (gay

teachers) "just to get them in touch with their own sexuality--whatever

it is"; "by them seeing me in a gay bar"; "teachers are with kids more

than parents"; (heterosexual teachers) "by those things I haven't

examined"; "I hope that I do it"; "I'm not sure how but I think it's















there"; "if by peripheral areas, like valuing family life, enjoying

being married, then yes"; "and I think it's an important role"; "just

being myself would influence some of them."

Some comments accompanying "no" responses were: (gay teachers)

"I'm role modelling other things but not sexual identity"; "I don't

think you could make a kid gay or straight, just comfortable with

whatever they were feeling"; "sex roles but not orientation"; "a

function of my job is to say 'This is reality' and build the students'

egos"; "I find it inconceivable for someone to be heterosexual or

homosexual because of the influence of a teacher"; "why would I want to

influence them? Life style's not really important, it's what you do in

that life"; "because I'm not willing to tell them how I feel about

personal things--I refer them to the guidance counselor"; "I think you

can foster understanding of what's already there and you can foster

self-acceptance. But you cannot really influence someone's sexual

identity nor his sexual preference. You might fear the fire out of him

and he would play a role, but underneath he knows all the time that

he's playing that role"; (heterosexual teachers) "I don't think you

have to in most cases"; "I think you can culturally be influenced but

there has to be consistency"; "only [in the way of] my husband brings

me lunch sometimes and kisses me."

Some comments accompanying "I don't know" responses were: (qay

teachers) "how you come across as a teacher is primary [not your sexual














identity]"; "I think that a good role model can certainly influence

whether that choice--if there is a choice--is a positive one or whether

the student feels good about it. And I mean that both ways because I'm

sure that there are alot of people who become heterosexual who don't

feel good about being heterosexual"; "I don't know what influences

people, or what influenced me"; (heterosexual teachers) "I know I

influence sex roles"; "indirectly, maybe, as a model"; "I think I can

for one year--have no idea in the big picture"; "I try to influence in

terms of sex roles"; "it just depends on how the teacher handles

certain situations and the individual teacher . just how they

respond to the kids and the kind of questions you asked me before."

The following questions pertain to being solicited for sexual

activity, both by students and other school personnel.

Question 8. Have you ever been approached by a student for

homosexual contact? (gay and heterosexual responses) yes 6, 1; no 24,

25.

Question 9. Have you ever been approached by a student for

heterosexual contact? (gay and heterosexual responses) yes 6, 2; no

24, 24.

Question 10. Have you ever been approached by another teacher or

staff member for homosexual contact? (gay and heterosexual responses)

yes 10, 0; no 20, 26.

Question 11. Have you ever been approached by another teacher or














Question 11. Have you ever been approached by another teacher or

staff member for heterosexual contact? (gay and heterosexual

responses) yes 19, 8; no 10, 18.


Summary

Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Gay teachers scored significantly higher

on the feminine scale than heterosexual teachers, with no significant

difference on the masculine scale. Within group comparisons showed the

following significant differences: gay women scored higher on the

masculine scale than heterosexual women; gay men scored higher on the

feminine scale than heterosexual men; and heterosexual women scored

higher on the feminine scale than heterosexual men. Gay teachers

scored significantly higher on both the feminine and masculine scales

than did the normative sample.

Teacher Characteristics Schedule. There were no significant

differences between the gay and heterosexual teachers on any of the six

scales. The only significant interaction effect was found between sex

and grade on the social/personal adjustment scale. In comparing gay

teachers to the normative sample, gays were significantly more open to

change, less religious, more socially/personally adjusted, and less

dedicated to teaching. In comparing heterosexual teachers to the

normative sample, heterosexuals were significantly less religious,

less dedicated to teaching, and more prone to give valid responses.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs