Antecedents of Sexual Orientation Diversity Among Division III Athletic Departments

Background/Purpose: Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual administrators, coaches, and student athletes often face prejudice and discrimination in the sport context. They are treated differently, forced to conceal their sexual orientation, and are oftentimes denied access to positions, both through subtle and overt means. Despite this negative treatment, there are some athletic departments where all forms of diversity, including sexual orientation, are valued and respected. The purpose of this study is to examine how such environments are created. Specifically, this study focused on antecedents of sexual orientation diversity among departmental employees of NCAA Division III athletic departments. Both the diversity culture (compliance, reactive, and proactive) and workforce demographic diversity (gender and racial) were considered as antecedents.

Method: Data were collected from 653 athletic administrators from NCAA Division III athletic departments, and later aggregated to the department level of analysis (n = 199). Participants completed a questionnaire in which they provided the demographics of the department and completed items pertaining to the perceived sexual orientation diversity of the department and the degree to which the department followed compliance, reactive, and proactive diversity management strategies.

Analysis/Results: A cluster analysis was computed to determine the relationships among employee diversity and the different diversity strategies. Three clusters emerged. The first cluster included departments with high employee diversity, high proactive diversity strategy, and scored low on both compliance and reactive strategies. The second cluster included departments that had low employee diversity, high proactive diversity strategy, and scored low on both compliance and reactive strategies. The third cluster included departments with low employee diversity and had moderate scores for all three diversity management strategies. An analysis of variance indicated that departments in the first cluster had significantly more sexual orientation diversity than did their counterparts, F (2, 195) = 10.48, p < .001.

Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that departments following a clear, proactive strategy, and that couple that with high gender and racial diversity, are also likely to have high sexual orientation diversity. Thus, departments with an overall commitment to diversity are likely to have welcoming environments for persons of all sexual orientations.