This research project aimed to explore the world of college LGBT Resource Center programming to better understand what exactly it is that Resource Centers are doing in their efforts to support queer college students. Specifically, I wanted to look at the similarities and differences between Centers at public and private schools to investigate how structural factors influenced the framing of Centers and the methods they used to support their constituencies. My research question was:
What is the effect of school type on the types of programming advertised among college/university LGBT Resource Center Instagram pages?
I answered this question by gathering a random systemic sample of Resource Center program advertisements from across the United States. This sample was then analyzed using the methods of basic and interpretive content analysis. Through this, I found there were both similarities and differences in the types of programming offered by public and private schools, and that these indicated specific forms of framing across different centers.
The advertisements posted by both types of schools tended to be very positive and convivial in tone. This aligned with the general intentions, with most schools focusing on community-building and socialization. Overall, the Resource Centers positioned themselves as primarily spaces for community building and social support rather than spaces for hard-hitting advocacy and activism. Similar trends have been found in the communication strategies of other LGBT organizations and activism groups which focus on being positive and non-combative (Mundy 2013).
Related to activism is the Center’s treatment of the intersectional nature of queer identity. Several researchers have noted that the founding of these centers in the tradition of the mainstream Gay Rights Movement and the ‘safe space’ ideology that many operate under opens them up to problems with intersectionality and the inclusion of all members of the LGBTQIA+ community, including bisexual students (Tavarez 2022), transgender and gender-nonconforming students (Garvey et al. 2019: Goldberg 2018: Marine and Nicolazzo 2014: Renn 2010), religious queer students (Zamani-Gallaher and Choudhuri 2016), and queer students of color (Duran 2019: Marine and Nicolazzo 2014: Rankin et al. 2019: Fox and Ore 2010: Nicolazzo 2017).
As for the differences between the schools, the private schools were more likely to advertise their programming as explicitly queer. This included using more explicitly queer language. This is compared to public schools which were more likely to use descriptive language like “LGBT,” use more subtle language that is not explicitly tied to LBT identity, or refrain from defining a target audience at all. This extended to their programming with public schools advertising more programs related to relationship and sexual health, topics that apply to the entire campus, not just queer students. This made it seem as though private school Centers were less afraid to be more political and to position themselves as explicitly queer. This could indicate a greater feeling of safety/security on campus which enables more openness, or a willingness to take a stand instead of actively avoiding provoking offense.
I found connections between these different frames to Self and Hudson’s (2015) Spatial Analytic Matrix Model. This model situates Resource Centers on three different levels. Centers on the “Survival” level included those fighting for their ability to exist on campus. They saw themselves as marginally safe spaces whose precarious legitimacy kept their advocacy efforts from rising above maintaining the existence of their office and its current programs. Those on the “Developmental” level included Centers working to develop their Center’s programming and presence on campus. They saw themselves as safe spaces or sanctuaries who felt included and validated on campus and whose work advocated for personal identity development and the inclusion of intersecting identities. Finally, centers on the “Social & Systemic Transformation” level included those with established power and presence on campus. They saw themselves as “brave spaces” that challenged the college’s norms, structures, and institutions and critically engaged with its foundational frameworks to restructure the school to serve its constituencies better.
It seemed as though the centers at the private schools were more likely to fall under the Developmental level, while those at the public schools fell under the Survival level. I do not think that any of the centers included in the sample had programming which would lead me to place them on the Social & Systemic Transformation level. However, it should be noted that public-facing programs like those advertised on the Centers’ Instagram pages may not be the extent of these groups’ work on their campuses, and many could be working behind-the-scenes on administrative reforms which could bump them up to this highest level. This is a limitation of this project, as only those programs that were marketed through social media were included. Programming that is not public-facing may be more political, engaged with the administration, or tied to specific audiences. Future research that talks to those working at centers or to students served by centers could better answer how exactly Centers see themselves and how they feel their programming is affected by their Center’s positioning on their campus.