Diversity and safety on campus @ Western: Heterosexism and cissexism in higher education
| Author | Nicole L. Asquith,Brooke Brady,Tania Ferfolia,Benjamin Hanckel |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0269758018799032 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Diversity and safety
on campus @ Western:
Heterosexism and cissexism
in higher education
Nicole L. Asquith
Western Sydney University, Australia
Tania Ferfolia
Western Sydney University, Australia
Brooke Brady
Neuroscience Research Australia, Australia
Benjamin Hanckel
King’s College London, UK,
University of Tasmania, Australia
Abstract
Discrimination, harassment and violence can vitiate staff and students’ experiences of education
and work. Although there is increasing knowledge about these experiences in primary and sec-
ondary education, very little is known about them in higher education. This paper draws from
landmark research that examines the interpersonal, educational and socio-cultural perspectives
that prevail about sexuality and gender diversity on an Australian university campus. In this paper
we focus on three aspects of the broader research findings: the heterosexism and cissexism
experienced by sexuality and gender diverse students and staff at the university; their actions and
responses to these experiences; and the impact of these experiences on victims. The research
demonstrates that although the university is generally safe, sexuality and gender diverse students
and staff experience heterosexist and cissexist discrimination, which can have negative ramifica-
tions on their workplace and learning experiences.
Corresponding author:
Nicole L. Asquith, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW
2751, Australia.
Email: N.Asquith@westernsydney.edu.au
International Review of Victimology
2019, Vol. 25(3) 320–340
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0269758018799032
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Keywords
Heterosexism, cissexism, discrimination, exclusion, university, sexuality
Introduction
Over the last few years, there has been growing research interest in the experiences of sexuality and
gender diverse (SGD) staff and students in Australian higher education (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2017; Dau and Strauss, 2016; Ferfolia, 2010; Ferfolia and Hopkins, 2013; Ferfolia
and Stavrou, 2015; Ferfolia and Ullman, 2017; Israel et al., 2017; Miller, 2017; Roffee and Waling,
2016; Waling and Roffee, 2017, 2018). To date, much of this research has been qualitative and
based on interviews with students (and sometimes staff) who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, intersex and/or queer (LGBTIQ). This paper reports on findings from mixed methods
research conducted at Western Sydney University (Western). Diversity and Safety on Campus @
Western (Ferfolia et al., 2018) is the first and only Australian study to collect both qualitative and
quantitative data on heterosexism and cissexism experienced by SGD
1
staff and students in a
university context (n¼412). Additionally, it is the only study of its kind to document the views
of all staff and students (SGD and non-SGD) ab out sexuality and gender diversity, and their
capacity to intervene in heterosexist and cissexist exclusion
2
(n¼2,395). This landmark research
makes a significant contribution to the field through its exploration of the interpersonal, educa-
tional and socio-cultural perspectives that prevail about sexuality and gender diversity on campus,
and its examination of interventions in heterosexist and cissexist exclusion and the services
available to support SGD individuals on campus. This paper focuses on three key areas of the
overall project: SGD staff and students’ experiences of exclusion (at 12 months, since starting as a
student or staff member at Western, and their most significant incident); their actions at the time of
their most significant incident; and the consequences and impacts of heterosexist and/or cissexist
exclusion. Before reporting on the research findings, it is critical to contextualise it.
Homonormativity in higher education
Victims have long been ignored by scholars of crime and it has only been in the latter half of the
20th century that victims’ experiences have been subject to the necessary theorisation central to
developing evidence-based approaches (Rock, 2007). Initially, based on studies of extreme violent
crime such as homicide, victims were framed as complicit in their victimisation, or that their
actions precipitated their victimisation (von Hentig, 1940; Wolfgang, 1957). In addition to blaming
victims for their experiences, this ‘penal coupling’ (Mendelsohn, 1963) of victims and offenders
laid the groundwork for later theorising, which framed victims as ‘targets’ of crime. Yet, con-
versely, the structural coordinates of being targeted were largely unremarked and unremarkable
until the growth in feminist scholarship in criminology in the 1980s. The attribution of blame, and
failure to recognise the inequitable division of victimisation, led to the development of conserva-
tive theories of victimisation, which tended to place the onus on victims and their routine activities
or lifestyle choices. Both routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979) and lifestyle theory
(Hindelang et al., 1978) posit that it is the people and places encountered by victims that bring them
into contact with offenders and victimisation. The implication is that victims are best to avoid these
criminogenic people and places if they are unable to harden themselves against being a target of
crime. Central to these theories are concepts such as target (victim) attractiveness—in particular,
Asquith et al. 321
To continue reading
Request your trial