[From the Spring, 1996 issue of The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Newsletter]
Charles Outcalt, MTS '94
In the spring of 1995, I was asked by UCLA's Chancellor's Advisory Committee on the Gay and Lesbian Community to develop a lesbian, gay and bisexual resources office for the campus. You've read a bit about this office in a recent edition of the Caucus Newsletter. I'd like to take this opportunity to enter into more detail on the establishment and early work of UCLA's office. When appropriate, I will draw parallels to Harvard's continuing efforts to create a similar office.
UCLA's Office rests on the years long and insightful work of several key campus figures. As early as five years before the Office was established, an on campus office charged with assessing the quality of student life undertook an analysis of the experiences of LGB students. This report found that LGB students did share many of the needs of their heterosexual counterparts, yet they faced unique challenges. For example, they reported that they were much more likely than heterosexual students to have experienced discrimination, harassment and loneliness. Interestingly, they were more interested than their heterosexual peers in creating and sustaining a sense of community on campus. A second study, performed in 1991 by UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute, supported these conclusions. Significantly, both these studies commanded the respect of the UCLA administration; both were effective in showing the administration that, although UCLA did provide excellent resources to all its student population, including the LGB community, non-heterosexuals had compelling unmet needs.
It was within this context of heightened administration receptivity that the proposal for a Resources Office was developed and presented to the UCLA administration. The proposal called for the establishment of a professionally staffed office to channel UCLA students to appropriate service providers. A second key element of the proposal was the creation of a "safe space" on campus for LGB students to meet with office personnel, conduct group meetings, and, more simply and profoundly, exist in a supportive environment.
After a review period of several years, the UCLA administration acted on the proposal, deciding in 1994 to fund and make space available for an office. Not all elements of the proposal were granted: the allotted space was initially quite small, and only one staff person was to be hired. However, the UCLA LGB community felt that the office they had been authorized to create would be sufficient to establish a base from which some services could offered, and from which the need for even greater resources could be asserted.
In March, 1995 I left my position in Public Policy at the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center to develop UCLA's LGB office. My primary goal in my first few months at UCLA was to update and focus the findings of the above-mentioned studies by determining exactly which resources were available on campus for LGB students. In this investigation, I visited all major campus student service providers and met with hundreds of students on a one-on-one basis. This phase of my work had a value beyond information gathering: by meeting with so many service providers, I was able to initiate many dialogues (which continue to this day) on LGB issues. In addition, I conducted several focus groups to which all interested parties were invited. These groups were a good opportunity to present the new office to the campus, and to gather "at large" opinions on LGB affairs at UCLA. Finally, I met with the campus based LGB organizations. In these meetings, I found that, like Harvard, UCLA has a loose network of LGB student, faculty and staff groups. These groups, again like Harvard's, often were characterized by great energy and accomplishment. However, also like Harvard's groups, UCLA's groups sometimes found it difficult to find efficient means of communicating with one another on a regular basis.
In June 1995, I presented a report on my findings, with recommendations for enhancements to the quality of LGB life on UCLA's campus, to the Chancellor's Advisory Committee on the Gay and Lesbian Community. This body, comprised of students, faculty, staff, alumni/ae and community representatives, had been charged by the Chancellor with the task of keeping him informed on the state of LGB-related issues on the UCLA campus. Reporting to the Chancellor's Committee was the most appropriate means of conveying my findings to the University administration.
While many of my findings were particular to UCLA's campus, some have strong resonances with Harvard. UCLA, like Harvard, offers excellent resources which are not always as well utilized by students as they could be, often because students simply are not aware of the services offered them by the school. To continue the comparison: Los Angeles, like Boston, holds outstanding LGB resources, such as community groups, health centers and publications, yet students are often unaware of the community awaiting them off campus.
Accordingly, I recommended to the Chancellor's Committee that my office become a developer and distributor of informational resources. I have since devoted the lion's share of my time to outreach to and coordination with UCLA's myriad LGBT groups, although I also undertake a considerable amount of advocacy and crisis intervention. Beginning in the fall of 1995, I have taken on responsibility for working with UCLA's faculty, staff and alumni/ae, as well as student groups. This "global" approach is more efficient and personally satisfying, although I enjoyed the opportunity to focus on student issues and concerns in my first six months at UCLA. In the future, I hope to become more directly involved in LGB programming on campus. In addition, I expect to assume a supportive role for UCLA's proposed LGB Studies Minor upon its (knock on wood) approval by the UCLA administration.
I would like to close this article by offering a few recommendations for the LGBT community at Harvard as it moves closer to establishing an LGBT office. First, ensure that office is professionally staffed. This is vital for office continuity, credibility and advocacy. A student, not matter how competent, reliable and well-intended, cannot assume the responsibility a staff member can. Imagine the untenable conflict in which a student would find him- or herself if asked to take steps to intervene in a harassment situation. Second, once an office is established, make creating and distributing information a top priority; leave programming and other direct service for later. Harvard has, as you know, extensive resources; what is needed from an office in the beginning is not the creation of further resources, but the coordination and focusing of those it currently possesses. Third, place the office near the center of campus in an accessible but not entirely public location. There are many details regarding the physical layout of the office which can be decided after it is established, but I have learned that an office which is too far from the beaten track will be under-used, while one which cannot be entered privately will not reach some of the students who need it the most. Finally, and most importantly, I urge the Harvard LGB community to act as quickly as possible to convince the administration to commission a study similar to those which were instrumental in demonstrating the need for a center at UCLA. As a former Harvard student and staff member, I know personally of the need for a center on campus; a well executed study will do a great deal toward convincing the administration.
If you have questions on any of the above, I can be reached at [email protected].
[From the Spring, 1996 issue of The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Newsletter]