Increase in Assault Cases in Most Learning Institutions across the US - Essay Example

Despite increased sensitization and acceptance of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) in most academic institutions, the everyday experiences of this minority group; pressure, new gender roles, social interaction and class performance leads to repeated hostility towards them (Overall 73). Most LGBT students, out of such negative experiences become uncomfortable, which forces them to be invisible or ‘cover’ their new form of sexuality. However, most higher learning institutions like the University of California, Southern Oregon University, Ithaca College, and University of Illinois among others have embraced the LGBT groups and have in solidarity, made substantial moves to support them by providing on campus accommodation. To facilitate this program, most of these institutions have modified campus hostels so that they can have facilities that support such minority groups. Through construction of LGBT facilities, institutions honor and respect diversification, change, and human rights but it is a bad idea because it leads to contradictory perceptions among students, which might cause a rift that can limit maximum performance and realization of its objectives. Self-destructive behavior. Learning institutions are the only hope in the current world that has the capabilities to mould youths into upright adults. With all due respect to human rights, it cannot be considered as freedom if LGBT individuals are allowed to use unique facilities. It is the simplest way of breeding a new form of immorality in campuses. Make you, sexual behaviors among this minority group exposes participants to a very high risk of HIV infection (McDermott et al. 820). Since college life is about peer influence, if LGBT dominates in most campuses, even innocent students can be influenced and easily converted into LGBT behavior. Does it sound cool to have a whole school or country full of the newly found third gender? To prevent such self-destructive behavior, colleges should not support such projects and should treat students on the basis of the original gender; male or female and nothing more. Segregation. As cohorts that act as a unifying factor and an element to promote ethnic and religious diversity, building LGBT hostels promotes discrimination because of segregation. While the LGBT individuals will be a happy lot for being favored or considered special, the remaining majority will feel separated from their classmates and friends. Therefore, to avoid such scenarios, University management and the Ministry of Higher Learning should detest from this form of discrimination and let students intermingle and share facilities. There is nothing special about LGBT individuals that other students do not have. The only modification relates to their ego, sexual perception and orientation, physical and emotional behavior, and dress code. However, some activists argue that LGBT individuals are prone to abuse and humiliation, and thus the need for modified housing facilities. However, it must be clear that separating them does not cure the wound, if in any case there is any. What need to be done is to promote public awareness and encourage other students to accept them as they are, support them, and live with them in peace and harmony. Segregating them widens the rift and may lead to pure hatred, seclusion in groups, which eventually makes most LGBT students feel bad about who they are thus a posing a high risk for suicidal cases due to self-denial (Blake et al. 940). Giving a go ahead to construct LGBT housing units is like formulating policies to punish LGBT students. Therefore, making them feel part of the university community can be effective through the use of meaningful programs and policies that offer protection against physical abuse. Termination of financial support. Most universities in the U.S. are sponsored by religious groups and charity organizations. Accommodating behavior that contradicts the sponsors faith and perceptions may terminate their continuous support. Most LGBT movements are built on the basis other than religious with the aim of supporting human social behavior. However, from a religious perspective, it is treated as ridicule to the Creator and the general purpose of sexual orientation, normalcy in human behavior, and as a mechanism to tamper with human reproduction and family orientation. Critics argue that funding of most university activities is something done by the government but according to Haas & Sparkman (412), even though appreciative of the fact that the government has been on the forefront to support school funding for the last 158 years, reduced capital base has paved way for other charitable organizations to support learning. There are a series of private universities and colleges that require all students to observe their religious attributes and follow them to the latter. Family issues and religion guides most human foundation and thus LGBT individuals raised in religious backgrounds experience dissonance between their sexuality and spirituality. Therefore, accepting the LGBT housing model idea compromises their credibility. Privacy and security. All human beings are entitled to privacy and secure environments. From the perspective of what LGBT movements and individuals demand for, it is a valid reason as to why such housing facilities should be constructed. Since they form part of the newly found human gender and social cohort, they require privacy to handle their issues that may sound weird to other students. Most learning institutions are committed to provide this basic need to its students. However, it may not be in the interest of the university to construct such facilities because it does not align itself to the mission, vision and objectives of the institution. Therefore modifying the typical housing units, as perceived by universities can cause a security threat in that it may be good breeding ground for the famous student criminal gang activities, drug smuggling, and immorality. Troubling health behaviors. University management is concerned with promoting good health among its students. Centre of Disease Control and Prevention confirms that LGBT students often develop worrying health behaviors including violence, depression, drug abuse, early exposure to sexual activity. However, there is no direct link between being LGBT and developing the mentioned health behaviors. They spring from societal perception, discrimination, self-denial, and peer pressure. As a strategy to promote good health and learning environment, most universities cannot support activities that contradict their objectives or pull them down. Therefore, it may never be in the interest of any learning to build facilities that favor LGBT students if they are negatively linked to issues revolving around health and general well-being of students and staff. Conclusion Increase in assault cases in most learning institutions across the United States has led to an increase in federally funded block grants inclusive in school programs to tighten security among students. Social counselors have also been hired to sensitize students and staff about LGBT. Originally, the difference between LGBT and normal gender perceptions revolve around family roles and religion matters (Cahill 1155). There is no way the two will ever agree despite the fact that political governments and sociologists have accepted it as a norm and a transformation in human behavior, religion gives no room to this modification. Constructing such housing units in learning institutions has more negative connotations than the positive. Since only two genders define human beings, adding the newly formed gender can strain school facilities at the expense of others. It will be an easy way of promoting immorality because most LGBT behavior is induced and not a normal affiliation. It is better to train those who decide to take up the new gender role into fitting in the normal human system. While it can be very difficult to fit in because of rejection, stigmatization, and harassment, university managements can encourage learners to understand and accept LGBT individuals and treat them as their colleagues who mean no harm. It can be very difficult to force universities to venture into projects that are not aligned with their main mission. Those universities that are willing to carry on with the project, it is up to them but those who do not want, they have valid reasons and some of them are discussed above. Human beings are good at resisting change especially if they cannot link it to anything beneficial in the almost uncertain future. Works cited Blake, Susan M., et al. "Preventing sexual risk behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: The benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools." American Journal of Public Health 91.6 (2001): 940. Cahill, Courtney M. "(Still) Not Fit To Be Named: Moving Beyond Race To Explain WhySeparateNomenclature for Gay and Straight Relationships Will Never BeEqual." Georgetown Law Journal 97 (2009): 1155. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health.cdc.gov. Feb 2011. Web. Haas D. S. & Sparkman W. E. “Financing School Facilities in Texas” Journal of Education Finance 13.4 (1988), 412-420. McDermott E., Roen K., Scourfield J. “Avoiding Shame: Young LGBT People, Homophobia and Self-Destructive Behaviours.” Culture, Health & Sexuality. 10.8 (2008), 815-829. Overall, Christine. "Public toilets: Sex segregation revisited." Ethics & the Environment 12.2 (2007): 71-91. Read More