Journal of LGBT Youth

ISSN: 1936-1653 (Print) 1936-1661 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjly20

Safe Zones

Kerry John Poynter MA & Nancy Jean Tubbs

To cite this article: Kerry John Poynter MA & Nancy Jean Tubbs (2008) Safe Zones, Journal of
LGBT Youth, 5:1, 121-132

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J524v05n01_10

Published online: 12 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 972

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjly20

Download by: [University of York] Date: 20 January 2017, At: 08:12

 POLICY AND PRAXIS

Safe Zones:
Creating LGBT Safe Space Ally Programs
Kerry John Poynter
Nancy Jean Tubbs

ABSTRACT. This article discusses model LGBT Safe Space Ally pro-
grams. These programs, often called “Safe Zones,” include self selected
students, faculty, and employees who publicly show support by dis-
playing stickers, signs, and other identifiable items. Issues covered in
the article include history, development, training, membership, assess-
ment, and political considerations. doi:10.1300/J524v05n01_10 [Article cop-
ies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website:
<http://www. HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights re-
served.]

Kerry John Poynter is Assistant Director of Multicultural Affairs at Columbia Uni-

versity. He has an MA in Administration of College Student Affairs in Counselor Edu-
cation & Counseling Psychology at Western Michigan University.
Nancy Jean Tubbs is Director of the University of California, Riverside Lesbian
Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center (E-mail: nancy.tubbs@ucr.edu). She has
an MS in Educational Administration (Student Affairs Administration in Higher Edu-
cation) at Texas A&M University.
Journal of LGBT Youth, Vol. 5(1) 2007
Available online at http://jly.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J524v05n01_10 121
122 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH

KEYWORDS. Allies, educational interventions, gay and lesbian pro-

gramming, higher education; training heterosexual allies, safe space,
Safe Zone

Heterosexual people are often asked to be advocates for lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) college students.1 Yet, these willing
allies have few skills or resources available to them and no personal ex-
periences to guide their development as LGBT advocates. Nonetheless,
with adequate resources and training, heterosexual staff, faculty, and
students can have a significant effect on creating a positive culture on a
college campus.
Washington and Evans (1991, p. 195) define an ally as “a person who
is a member of the dominant or majority group who works to end op-
pression in his or her personal and professional life through support of,
and as an advocate with and for, the oppressed population.” Allies, in-
cluding racial/ethnic minorities, are instrumental in affecting positive
change in the dominant culture.
Educational policy makers and program planners have recently rec-
ognized the potential of developing heterosexual allies in making the
university culture more accepting towards LGBT people (Bullard,
2004). However, young adults are likely to believe that their peers hold
negative attitudes about LGBT people, resulting in adjustment of be-
havior to emulate this misperception (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001;
Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, & Vernaglia, 2002). Heterosexual males,
in particular, often feel the need to fit in and be accepted by others that
hold negative attitudes about LGBT people thus emulating their peers
(Franklin, 1998). The public identification of heterosexual allies
through a LGBT Safe Space Ally Program can help to alleviate previ-
ously held misperceptions, encourage affirming group identification,
and encourage others to participate hence creating a more accepting
campus.
A number of colleges and universities have developed LGBT Safe
Space Ally programs (Evans, 2002; Henquinet, Phibbs, &, Skoglund,
2000; Hothem & Keen, 1998; Poynter & Barnett, n.d.; Poynter &
Schroer, 1999; Poynter & Wang, 2003; Sanlo, Rankin, & Schoenberg,
2002; Tubbs, 2003; Tubbs, Bliss, Cook, Poynter, & Viento, 2000). The
names for these programs vary (Safe Zone, Safe Space, Safe Harbor,
SAFE on Campus, Allies) but their goals include improving the campus
climate, increasing awareness, enhancing conversations around LGBT
issues, providing safe space, educating and providing skills to members
 Queer Re(Presentations) 123

to confront homophobia, transphobia, biphobia or heterosexism. Al-

though it is unclear where the “Safe” idea originated, the earliest refer-
ence found is the Ball State University program called SAFE On
Campus (Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Student Association, 1992).
The hallmark of these “Safe” programs is the public identification of
allies by placing a “Safe” symbol, usually incorporating a pink triangle
or rainbow or the word “ally” or a combination of all three, on office
doors or within living spaces. Typical components of these programs
consist of a resource manual and sticker or sign. Many programs also re-
quire an orientation or training session(s) of varying lengths. Other
components may include a listserv, advisory board/committee, web
page resources, assessment, periodic socials, and identifying objects
such as key chains, buttons, and pens.
Until recently there was no published information about these pro-
grams and what little is available was scattered throughout the Internet
(Evans, 2002; Johnson, 2005). There still exists a lack of comprehen-
sive information to inform others about how to implement, coordinate,
facilitate training, and assess these programs. As a result, these pro-
grams can still be based on little shared knowledge or experience.

ORGANIZING A LGBT SAFE SPACE ALLY PROGRAM

When creating an LGBT Safe Space Ally program many strategic ques-
tions must be considered: Who will organize and administer the program?
How will the campus administration respond? How will the campus LGBT
community respond? What resources are available? Programs at different
institutions are either coordinated by a professionally staffed campus
LGBT services office (Sanlo, Rankin, & Schoenberg, 2002), staff and
faculty or by student organizations. Often an advisory board consisting
of staff, faculty members, and students may have responsibility for coor-
dination, recruitment, and training. Advantages of staff and faculty coordi-
nation include: continuity of organizers who remain many years on
campus; knowledge and expertise of student affairs staff or faculty; re-
sources of campus offices; and, legitimacy when supported by administra-
tion. There are, however, strengths of student coordination: energy of
student organizers; student empowerment; and, university-recognized stu-
dent organizations with access to more funding than departments.
Regardless of who coordinates the program, college administrators
should not rely solely on students to provide services and education to
the campus community. Including all potential stakeholders in the de-
124 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH

velopment of the program–students, staff, faculty and administration–

will help to provide legitimacy. Planners should invite influential cam-
pus leaders such as administration and student leaders to serve on an ad-
visory board. Responsibilities of the advisory board should include
assistance in identifying potential allies and providing a sounding board
for ideas. Board members should be prepared to stand up for the pro-
gram in public and agree to attend or facilitate training sessions. Mean-
while, many campus offices or academic departments may have an
interest in helping to launch the program: women’s centers, cross-cul-
tural centers, counseling centers, Greek advisors, residence life, health
education, student activities or student unions, academic advisors,
Women’s Studies departments, sexualities/LGBT studies departments
and supportive student groups for assistance.
Organizers must also be cognizant of possible challenges by campus
administration. Strategies for responding should be outlined before
launching the program such as: turning to current literature on the needs
of students “coming out”; using campus climate surveys to examine
whether safe spaces are needed on campus; looking at student affairs
mission statements and staff job duties to emphasize the right of every
student to a safe learning environment.
Students or staff/faculty outside of a particular office who create Safe
Space program must consider whether to seek official university recog-
nition. Independent programs may have more freedom from administra-
tive pressure. However, resources must be paid with donations and
fundraisers, and meeting space may be difficult to find. The campus ad-
ministration may also attempt to co-opt the program for political rea-
sons, such as using its existence to defend against charges of a hostile
campus climate.

PROGRAM MODES:
TRAINING vs. NO TRAINING

Components of most LGBT Safe Space programs are similar across

campuses. The major difference is whether training is or is not required
before displaying a sign or symbol identifying membership. Some pro-
grams will not require training (Evans, 2002) in favor of distributing
their safe space signs or symbols to a wider audience on the campus. In-
formation may be provided with the sign or symbols explaining that
anyone hanging the sign or symbol is expected to follow guidelines
(Iowa State, 2004).
 Queer Re(Presentations) 125

Training Model

The training may consist of a number of elements including: panels

of LGBT students, staff, and employees; referral guidelines for counsel-
ing and harassment reporting; role plays; information about identity de-
velopment; resources available on and off the campus; and general
LGBT information. Each training program should be specific to the
goals of their program and the assessed needs of the campus. At the con-
clusion of training, participants are then asked to sign a contract or val-
ues statement affirming their participation in the program.
The drawback to requiring training is that fewer people may partici-
pate in the program. However, since those in attendance have taken the
extra step to attend, it is more likely that members are committed to the
program’s goals. In addition, people will self select whether or not par-
ticipating as a member is right for them. Thus, the need to screen out
those that cannot fulfill the goals of the program will be less likely. On
rare occasions, people interested in participating in a program will want
to “save” or help LGBT people through religious conversion therapy.
Providing a required training insures that you know that the participants
have seriously and critically considered what it will be like to be
affirmative toward LGBT people.
Training Justification
A required training should be an integral part of a comprehensive
LGBT Safe Space Ally Program. Assuming that all interested partici-
pants will be able to function and communicate, when in contact with
LGBT people, does not take into consideration the impediments to this
contact. Posting a “safe” sign or symbol is helpful in communicating
nonverbal support but not all persons who post a sign or display a sym-
bol are able to communicate effectively when conversation ensues.
Training helps to alleviate conversational barriers.
One obstacle to contact with LGBT people and issues is anticipated
discomfort about future interactions with LGBT people (Mohr &
Sedlacek, 2000). The fear of unintentionally exhibiting homophobic or
prejudiced behavior is also an impediment for future contact with
LGBT people (Devine, Evett, & Vasques-Suson, 1996; Mohr &
Sedlacek, 2000). Providing educational interventions, such as a re-
quired training, in a LGBT Safe Space Ally program that create inter-
personal contact with LGBT people, demonstrate affirming
126 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH

conversation techniques, and provide skills building activities can help

reduce discomfort and fear before members post signs or stickers.
Example Training Outline
Each university group will design a training based on the specific
needs of their campus. The most important elements that should be in-
cluded, however, are:
Introductions and Ground Rules. Introductions as not only a way to
get to know the participants but an avenue to learn. For example: Ask
for name, affiliation (major/department) as well as a brief example or
story that illustrates how and why they are affirming towards LGBT
people. Ground rules should set the stage for a safe space that includes
confidentiality, respect for opinions, and an open sharing dialogue.
Campus and Local Resources. A brief overview of resources avail-
able on campus and in the local community may include the campus
counseling center, student groups, LGBT Office, harassment reporting,
coffee shops, restaurants, bookstores, and local organizations. This in-
formation should be condensed into a document for later perusal.
Terminology. Provide for a discussion on common terms such as
heterosexism, homophobia, transgender, various labels, queer and
LGBT symbols. Solicit audience questions and provide a written vo-
cabulary of definitions.
LGBT and Ally Panel. An interactive question and answer format
with self-identified LGBT and heterosexual ally students, staff, and fac-
ulty who raise first-hand issues, concerns, and experiences on campus.
Due to time constraints a moderator may need to limit the type of ques-
tions asked. Provide note cards for participants to write questions on
and then choose a diverse set to use.
LGBT Developmental Theory and Ally/Majority Developmental
Theory. Using sexual identity formation theory (e.g., Cass, 1979;
McCarn & Fassinger, 1996), explain that LGBT people may have dif-
ferent needs and emphasize that people may be at different stages in var-
ious areas of their life (school v. job; v. family v. friends). Allow
participants to examine their level of homophobia using the Riddle Ho-
mophobia Scale (Riddle, 1996) while using majority/ally identity the-
ory (Broido, 1997; Sullivan, 1998; Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, &
Vernaglia, 2002 to explain that heterosexual people have different
needs as well. Use panelist stories to illustrate.
Role Plays/Case Study Exercises/Digital Video Scenarios and Dis-
cussion. Ask participants to act out various pre-written scenarios and re-
 Queer Re(Presentations) 127

spond to video scenarios. These help prepare future allies for verbal and
nonverbal communication with LGBT and heterosexual people.
Sign Contract/Values Statement/Provide Sign, Sticker. The contract
is an agreement to provide a “safe zone” for anyone dealing with sexual
orientation or gender identity issues. It emphasizes that an ally is meant
for support & referral and is not a professional counselor (UC Riverside
Allies Contract, n.d.). Signing the contract is required before anyone
can hang or use the sign or identifiable resources of the program. It
helps staff, faculty, and students consider whether they can meet the re-
sponsibilities of being a member. One challenge some people of faith
must consider is whether they can be affirming when they hold religious
beliefs contrary to being supportive of LGBT people. In these cases, po-
tential allies can be asked if they would be able to refrain from challeng-
ing someone based on their religious beliefs, and if they could refer
visitors to another ally or to a campus resource that will be supportive in
spiritual matters. Many potential allies recognize a duty to be supportive
of others, especially if they are staff or faculty seeking to create a safe
learning environment, regardless of their religious beliefs. However,
even those who cannot make this commitment have gained knowledge
and resources; sometimes they choose to join at a later time when they
can sign the contract and make the commitment with sincerity.

POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There may be some resistance to posting a sign/sticker that is only for

LGBT people. Some people, mainly faculty or staff, may say this is a
“special” program and should include all people in a “safe” space. Some
may questions whether racial and ethnic minorities are or should be part
of your “safe” program. Others may refuse to participate because it is
only for LGBT people. Still, some may counter: Are we going to have a
sticker for every group of people on this campus? Why isn’t a sign al-
ready posted in an office/department decrying racism or sexism and ad-
vocating inclusion in the office if it is such a large issue?
The reality is that not all people on campus are supportive, knowl-
edgeable, or understanding of LBGT people. Some persons on campus
are homophobic or heterosexist. And, there is a difference between
posting a “safe” sign that conveys a strong message of support for
LGBT people as opposed to posting a blanket statement against dis-
crimination already included in campus policy. Some schools, such as
Indiana University, have avoided this issue altogether by designing a
128 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH

program that is inclusive of everyone on campus. All participants in

such programs should agree to be supportive and affirming of all people
regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Additionally, many schools do not have professionally staffed LGBT
offices or dedicated resources for LGBT students. In times of financial
crisis, when budgets are thin, these programs are an inexpensive and
temporary way to help alleviate a lack of dedicated resources. However,
a recognized LGBT student organization, whether it receives student
activities funding or not, is an inadequate response to providing dedi-
cated resources to provide support, education, advocacy, and climate
change on campus.
Many LGBTQ people will assume a space is not safe until shown
otherwise. Prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity often times goes unchallenged and because a person
may not be recognizable as LGBT, she or he may hear heterosexist or
homophobic comments from people who are not aware of whom they
offend. Furthermore, potential LGBT mentors may be hidden within a
hostile climate.

MEMBERSHIP

No one should be pressured to become a member of a LGBT Safe

Space Ally program. Despite such fears from some administrators or
faculty, an assessment at Duke University found that “members did not
join the program because they were required or pressured” (Poynter &
Lewis, 2003, p. 1). Membership, too, varies from campus to campus.
Not all allies to the LGBT community are members of their program.
Many potential members of the program-individuals supportive of the
LGBT community on a daily basis who may have great knowledge of
issues and resources-never participate. They may not have the opportu-
nity to attend a training session or feel unsafe participating in the pro-
gram for professional reasons. Characteristics of those that are
affirming toward LGBT people and, thus, may get involved include
women, people with previous interpersonal contact with LGBT people,
those with an advanced education, friends that have similar views and
those with prior involvement in social justice activities for other
traditionally under-represented groups (Herek & Capitanio, 1995;
1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993).
At UC Riverside, 520 people signed contracts between 2000 and
2004 after attending a three-hour training session. Sixty percent were
 Queer Re(Presentations) 129

women, 39 percent men, and less than 1 percent transgender. Under-

graduates comprised seventy-one percent with the remainder being
staff, faculty, and graduate students. At Duke University over 400 peo-
ple have attended a four-hour training session; 365 people have joined
since February of 2000. Seventy percent of the current membership was
staff and faculty and thirty percent were undergraduate and graduate
students. A third of the members were male.

ONGOING ACTIVITIES AND EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS

Most LGBT Safe Space Ally programs only require that members at-
tend an initial training, display a sticker or sign, and provide a “safe” en-
vironment. While a mandatory training provides a strong foundation,
ongoing educational opportunities are required to better understand and
provide appropriate resources for a complex and diverse LGBT com-
munity. Some programs provide additional components or ongoing vol-
untary activities, including social events, focused educational
workshops, brown-bag lunch discussions, train the trainer workshops,
e-mail listserv, newspaper ads, and invitations to LGBT events. Some
workshops, discussions or panels may also be open to the wider
campus.

ASSESSING THE PROGRAM

LGBT Safe Space Ally programs make a difference. Anecdotal evi-

dence is most often cited as support that these programs are meeting
their stated goals. Assessment results, however, from two different in-
stitutions (Iowa State University and Duke University) found their pro-
grams increased visibility, improved the environment, improved
conversations, and increased the comfort levels of program participants
(Evans, 2002; Poynter & Lewis, 2003). However, some participants re-
port that they did not have many interactions with people on campus as
a result of participating in the program. Nevertheless, conversations in-
creased for some and, as a result, campus awareness around LGBT is-
sues is fostered. Other tangible benefits are apparent such as indirect
interactions (LGBT people feeling an increased comfort level) and
changing a perceived negative campus image (Evans, 2002).
Assessment of Safe programs is essential. A quality assessment will
include a review of program goals/objectives that support the depart-
130 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH

ment or university mission statement, an analysis of outcomes resulting

from the program, and decisions and recommendations (Bresciani,
2003; Upcraft & Schuh, 1996). Items to assess in a LGBT Safe Space
Ally program include trainings, workshops, campus culture change,
number and type of member conversations, member comfort level
change, and awareness of the program in the LGBT community. Evalu-
ation methods can include training exit surveys, online surveys of mem-
bership and the LGBT community (Poynter & Lewis, 2003) and
advisory board or focus group feedback.

NOTE

1. It is important to note that LGBT people can also be allies but may choose not to
be due to fear, discrimination, or harassment. Therefore, heterosexual and gender-nor-
mative allies hold much power to affect change that contributes to a more accepting
campus climate.

REFERENCES

Bowen, A., & Bourgeois, M. (2001). Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual col-
lege students: The contributions of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social impact,
and contact theories. (Electronic Version) Journal of American College Health,
50(2), 91-96.
Bresciani, M. (2003, March). The updated outline for assessment plans. Netresults, Re-
trieved November 5, 2006, from http://www.naspa.org/netresults/article.cfm?id=
996.
Broido, E. (2000). Ways of being an ally to lesbian, gay and bisexual students. In V.
Wall & N. Evans (Eds.), Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation and today’s col-
lege campus (pp. 345-369). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Bullard, M. (2004). Working with heterosexual allies on campus: A qualitative explo-
ration of experiences among lgbt campus resource center directors. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
D’Augelli, A. (1989). Homophobia in a university community: Views of perspective
resident assistants. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 546-552.
D’Augelli, A., & Rose, M. (1990). Homophobia in a university community: Attitudes
and experiences of heterosexual freshman. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 31, 484-491.
Devine, P., Evett, S., & Vasquez-Suson, K. (1996). Exploring the interpersonal dy-
namics of intergroup contact. In R. Sorrentine & E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition: Vol 3, The interpersonal context (pp. 423-464). New
York: Guilford Press.
 Queer Re(Presentations) 131

Duke University (2003). Train the trainer. SAFE on campus facilitator training
manuals. Retrieved December 29, 2006, from http://lgbt.studentaffairs.duke.edu/
programs_services/programs/safe/dvddownloads.html
Evans, N. (2002). The impact of an lgbt safe zone project on campus climate. Journal
of College Student Development, 43(4), 522-539.
Franklin, K. (1998). Unassuming motivations: contextualizing the narratives of
antigay assailants. In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understand-
ing prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 1-23). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Gelberg, S., & Chojnacki, J. (1995). Development transitions of gay/lesbian/bisexual
affirmative, heterosexual career counselors. The Career Development Quarterly,
43, 267-273.
Henquinet, J., Phibbs, A., & Skoglund, B. (November-December, 2000). Supporting
our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students. About Campus, 5(5), 24-26.
Herek, G. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates
and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477.
Herek, G., & Capitanio, J. (1995). Black heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research, 32(2), 95-105.
Herek, G., & Capitanio, J. (1996). Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact,
concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Per-
sonality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412-424.
Herek, G., & Glunt, E. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes to-
ward gay men: Results from a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 30(3),
239-244.
Hothem, K., & Keene C. (1998). Creating a safe zone project at a small private college:
How hate galvanized a community. In R. Sanlo (Ed.) Working with lesbian, gay, bi-
sexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administra-
tors (pp. 363-369). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Iowa State (2004). Safe zone how to. Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Student Ser-
vices. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.dso.iastate.edu/lgbtss/safezone/
howto.html
Johnson, D. (2005). School safety and school safe zones. In J. Sears (Ed.), Youth, edu-
cation, and sexualities: An international encyclopedia, (pp. 743-745). Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Student Association (1992). Safe on campus informational
manual. Ball State University, Muncie IN.
Mohr, J. (2002). Heterosexual identity and the heterosexual therapist: An identity per-
spective on sexual orientation dynamics in psychotherapy. The Counseling Psy-
chologist, 30, 532-566.
Mohr, J., & Sedlacek, W. (2000). Perceived barriers to friendship with lesbians and gay
men among university students. Journal of College Student Development, 41,
70-80.
Patel, S., Long, T., McCammon, S., & Wuensch, K. (1995). Personality and emotional
correlates of self-reported antigay behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10,
354-366.
132 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH

Pearlman, S. (1991). Mothers’ acceptance of daughters’ lesbianism: A parallel pro-

cess to identity formation. (Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University, 1991). Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 52, 287.
Poynter, K. (1999, March). Heterosexual allies: Their role in the learning community.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the American College Personnel Asso-
ciation, Atlanta, GA.
Poynter, K., & Barnett, D. (n.d.) National Consortium of Directors of LGBT Resources
in Higher Education. How do I start or implement a safe zone program at my college
or university? Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from
http://www.lgbtcampus.org/faq/safe_zone.html
Poynter, K., & Lewis, E. (2003). SAFE on campus assessment report. Durham, NC:
Duke University, Center for LGBT Life. Retrieved December 29, 2006, from
http://lgbt.studentaffairs.duke.edu/programs_services/programs/safe/dvddownloads.html
Poynter, K., & Schroer S. (1999). Safe on campus: A program for allies of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual students. Michigan Journal of College Student Development, 3(1), 6-8.
Poynter, K. (Producer), & Wang, C. (Director) (2003). SAFE on campus DVD: A free
training and development resource for lgbt safe space ally programs. [Digital
Video Case Studies. Duke University Center for LGBT Life] Retrieved December
29, 2006, from http://lgbt.studentaffairs.duke.edu/programs_services/programs/
safe/index.html
Sanlo, R., Rankin, S., & Schoenberg, R. (Eds.). (2002). Our place on campus: Lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender services and programs in higher education. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Simoni, J. (1996). Pathways to prejudice: Predicting students’ heterosexist attitudes
with demographics, self-esteem, and contact with lesbians and gay men. Journal of
College Student Development, 37, 68-78.
Tubbs, N. (2003) Campuses which offer safe zone or allies programs. Consortium of
LGBT Directors in Higher Education. Retrieved December 29, 2006, from
http://www.lgbtcampus.org/faq/safe_zone_roster.html
Tubbs, N., Bliss, L., Cook, M., Poynter, K., & Viento, W. (2000, November). Training
and programming for campus safe space programs: A roundtable discussion. Cre-
ating Change Conference, National Lesbian and Gay Task Force, Atlanta, GA.
University of California Riverside (n.d.) Allies contract. LGBT Resource Center. Re-
trieved April 4, 2007, from http://out.ucr.edu/programs/allies_contract.htm
Upcraft, M., & Schuh, J. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for practitio-
ners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Washington, J., & Evans, N. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. Evans & V. Wall (Eds.),
Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus (pp. 195-204). Alexan-
dria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Worthington, R., Savoy, H., Dillon, F., & Vernaglia, E. (2002). Heterosexual identity
development: A multidimensional model of individual and social identity. The
Counseling Psychologist, 30(4), 496-531.

RECEIVED: 01/14/04
REVISED: 02/21/05
ACCEPTED: 02/28/05