Social Work Education

The International Journal

ISSN: 0261-5479 (Print) 1470-1227 (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

A Modern Conceptualization of Sexual Prejudice

for Social Work Educators

Paulina Martinez

To cite this article: Paulina Martinez (2011) A Modern Conceptualization of Sexual

Prejudice for Social Work Educators, Social Work Education, 30:5, 558-570, DOI:
10.1080/02615479.2010.500657

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 04 Sep 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 196

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

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

[Link]

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 14 June 2016, At: 08:16
 Social Work Education
Vol. 30, No. 5, August 2011, pp. 558–570

A Modern Conceptualization of Sexual

Prejudice for Social Work Educators
Paulina Martinez

The existence of bias against gay men and lesbians presents an issue for the profession of
social work since social workers are committed to working with vulnerable populations
without prejudice. Public opinion polls suggest a growing complexity in heterosexuals’
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and this article explores a modern multidimensional
perspective to assist social work educators to improve the educational curriculum in this
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

area. This more complex view of social workers’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men
identifies overt, as well as subtle, forms of sexual prejudice.

Keywords: Diversity; Gay Issues; Theory; Lesbian Issues; Social Justice; Students; Anti-
discriminatory Practice; Sexuality

Introduction
A primary aim of social work education is to teach understanding, self-affirmation,
and respect for people of diverse backgrounds and cultures. Part of this purpose is
to particularly address the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable
and oppressed [Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), 2002; International
Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), 2004]. Social workers are expected to
promote social justice, to enhance human well-being, and to strive to end
discrimination [International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), 2004; National
Association of Social Workers (NASW), 2008]. In addition to belonging to their
professional community, social workers are members of societal communities in
which they are vulnerable to absorbing the explicit and implicit attitudes, beliefs and
behaviors of mainstream society (Cosis Brown and Kershaw, 2008). Social workers,
like other individuals, both laypeople and professionals, are the products of their
culture’s socialization process. In most countries around the world, this process

Correspondence to: Dr Paulina Martinez, Florida Atlantic University, 836 NE 17 Way, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304, USA.
Tel.: (954) 522-2266; Email: DrPauli@[Link]

ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online q 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2010.500657
 Social Work Education 559
socializes individuals in primarily a homophobic or heterosexist manner (Foreman
and Quinlan, 2008).
Lesbian and gay individuals, by virtue of their sexual orientation, have been
subjected to both institutionalized discrimination and personal attack (Herek, 2006).
The existence of widespread bias toward such a specific recognized minority presents
a particular problem for the profession of social work, since the profession has
historically been committed to serving all populations effectively and without prejudice
(Foreman and Quinlan, 2008).
The purpose of this article is to provide social work educators with a theoretical
framework of attitudes of social workers toward lesbians and gay men from a
multidimensional perspective, and to provide ideas of integrating this perspective into
the social work curriculum. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ)
issues have not been adequately included in social work education (Mackelprang et al.,
1996; Gezinski, 2009), and knowledge regarding subtle sexual prejudice is lacking
(Raiz and Saltzburg, 2007; Martinez et al., forthcoming). Knowledge of the many
dimensions in which attitudes are expressed would provide social work educators with
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

new information necessary to refine educational materials and activities to challenge

negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and promote more positive ones.
The relationship between curriculum content and traditional heterosexism has been
established in previous research. Black et al. (1998) found that social work courses had
a positive influence on students’ views toward lesbians and gay men. Their results
support the suggestion that new methods can be used to study sexual prejudice and
inform course development. However, schools of social work usually do not include
lesbian and gay material in the curriculum (Hylton, 2005). Even though presently
social workers appear to be becoming more accepting of lesbians and gay men than in
the past, the inclusion of lesbian and gay issues is necessary due to continued rates
of homophobia, heterosexism (Gezinski, 2009) and subtle sexual prejudice among
practitioners and students.

Historical Overview
The following historical overview will describe concepts that are essential to include
in any educational curriculum intended to teach about lesbian and gay individuals.
Research has documented that professionals who maintain negative attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men impact the kinds of services and treatment that social workers
deliver to these clients and their families; therefore these professionals are less effective
(Crisp, 2006), if not harmful, in their delivery of social services to lesbian and gay
clients and families (Meezan and Martin, 2009).

Public Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men

The findings of public opinion polls such as those conducted by USA Today, CNN and
Gallup News Service, report that the complexity of people’s attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men is increasing (Hicks and Lee, 2006). Data collected over the past two
 560 P. Martinez
decades suggest that the attitudes of heterosexuals toward lesbians and gay men are
becoming more positive in some areas but not in others. Moreover, these attitudes
tend to change over time, that is, they appear to change according to the specific issues
examined (Massey, 2004). When an issue involves equality or egalitarian principles,
such as civil rights, the heterosexual community’s attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men demonstrate a consistent shift toward tolerance. However, when attitudes involve
issues such as those considered to entail moral standards, tolerance does not improve
(Massey, 2004; Dugmore and Cocker, 2008).
For example, most American and British people maintain that they oppose
discrimination in housing, education and employment; yet, since they view homo-
sexuality as morally wrong, they support discrimination in same-sex marriages and do
not sanction lesbians and gay men adopting children (Massey, 2004; Cosis Brown and
Kershaw, 2008). In the United Kingdom (UK) many positive legislative changes have
occurred in the past few years such as the Equality Act 2006 and the Sexual
Orientations Regulations 2007. Both acts placed lesbians and gay men on an equal
plane with heterosexuals in relation to equal rights. However, the public expresses
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

more conservative positions than the legislation itself, especially when it comes to
issues of gay adoption and marriage (Cosis Brown and Kershaw, 2008).

Sexual Prejudice, Homophobia and Heterosexism

Sexual prejudice was first described from a psychological perspective by the
psychoanalyst Churchill (1967). In his book Homosexual Behavior Among Males,
Churchill described ‘homoerotophobia’ as the psychological consequence of living in
an ‘erothophobic’ society, that is, a society in which people are fearful of sexual feelings
and their physical expression. The term ‘homophobia’ [created by Weinberg (1972)],
refers to the ‘dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals’ (p. 4). Weinberg (1972)
suggested that this dread was the result of many factors, including a threat to values and
religion and a fear of being or becoming homosexual. Both Churchill (1967) and
Weinberg conceptualized sexual prejudice from a psychodynamic perspective, defining
it in terms of ego-defense mechanisms (Massey, 2004).
Herek (2004) coined the term ‘heterosexism’ in 1972. It describes a way of
thinking that places homosexuality in an inferior position to heterosexuality, giving
homosexuality a pejorative cast, comparable to the terms ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’
(Herek, 2004).
This new concept of heterosexism operationalized sexual prejudice in terms of a
single attitudinal dimension ranging at best from tolerance to outright hostility
toward lesbians and gay men. This unidimensional measure for sexual prejudice fails
to take into account the complex ways in which sexual prejudice can be experienced
and expressed (Massey, 2009).
The term ‘sexual prejudice’ is credited with formulation by Herek (2000). He
referred to sexual prejudice as ‘all negative attitudes based on sexual orientation,
whether the target is homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual’ (p. 19). Nevertheless, when
the term ‘sexual prejudice’ is used, it is generally directed toward people who label
 Social Work Education 561
themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or who engage in homosexual behavior.
Moreover, it is the most common term used in the literature in the twenty-first
century.

Homophobia as Pathology and Beyond

Research into sexual orientation was unknown until psychologist Evelyn Hooker began
exploring the area in 1957 (Boxer and Carrier, 1998). Hooker concluded that there
were no differences in gay men’s and heterosexual men’s mental health. According to
Herek (2004), heterosexuals’ condemnation of homosexuality as criminal, sick and
immoral became apparent when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) added
homosexuality as a mental disorder to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders I (DSM). At that time, homosexuality was seen as a result of the individual’s
disturbed early life experiences (Herek, 2004). This psychoanalytic view remained until
the early 1970s.
In 1973, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM based on lack of
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

evidence for it to be called a mental disorder (Herek, 2004). Supporters of removing

homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM utilized Hooker’s findings to
support their case (Boxer and Carrier, 1998).
Shortly afterwards, the APA removed the term ‘homosexuality’ from the DSM
(DSM-III, 1980), but heterosexuals continued to express negative attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men (Herek, 2004). Thereafter, homosexuality as a mental disorder
was replaced with the term ‘ego-dystonic homosexuality’, meaning that an individual’s
dissatisfaction with same-sex orientation was seen as a mental illness. However, this
term was removed from the DSM-III-R in 1987 (Halderman, 1991). The World
Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (the system of
classification most used in the UK) on the other hand, did not declassify homosexuality
as a mental disorder until 1992. The ICD replaced it instead with ‘ego-dystonic sexual
orientation’ (Jeyasingham, 2008). Although homosexuality has ceased to be regarded as
a mental illness by the APA, heterosexuality continues to be accepted as the norm by
society, and homosexuality is still often discussed in terms of pathology (Foreman and
Quinlan, 2008).
Nevertheless, these conceptualizations of sexual prejudice do not provide a current
and complete picture of heterosexual people’s attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.
The following theoretical perspective presents a more modern view that takes into
account the current sociopolitical changes in society and considers sexual prejudice
utilizing the literature on race, sex and prejudice.

Multidimensional Theoretical Perspective

Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men can be best understood by
utilization of a multidimensional approach which pays attention to attitudes regarding
sexual prejudice along many related but distinct attitudinal dimensions: pro-gay
 562 P. Martinez
egalitarianism, various expressions of modern and aversive heterosexism, and queer
consciousness. These are discussed below.

Pro-Gay Egalitarianism
Massey (2009) drew from the race, sex and new prejudice literatures to create a model
that reflects the modern manifestations of sexual prejudice. The major contribution of
his multidimensional model is drawn from race and sex research of the early 1970s,
which distinguishes ‘the influence of general egalitarianism (the absence of old-
fashioned or hostile prejudice) from that of other value-based (symbolic) and affective
(aversive) factors’ (Massey, 2004, p. 55). Similar to what appears to be a positive shift
in heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, overt racial attitudes and
overt attitudes toward women showed a positive shift. However, Massey reported that
old-fashioned racism and sexism have not disappeared; rather, they have changed to
other, more subtle value systems that operate and maintain racism and sexism. The
new value systems only changed the way in which racism and sexism are expressed
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

(Massey, 2004).
According to McConahay and Hough (1976), some of the anti-Black attitudes,
beliefs and behaviors that distinguish a modern or symbolic racist have four elements:
first, the symbolic racist expresses feelings that Blacks are becoming too demanding
and too pushy in their drive for equality and justice. Second, a modern or symbolic
racist lacks personal references in making judgments about Blacks. That is, Whites
who feel that Blacks are getting more than they deserve do not use their own
experience as the standard. It is not their personal welfare that they feel is threatened
but their values. Third, the symbolic racist expresses feelings that Blacks are getting
more than they deserve by questioning welfare and affirmative action programs as
symbols of Blacks’ demands and unfair advances at the expense of ‘values’. Finally,
because old-fashioned racism does not occur often, overt discrimination in housing,
employment and education are rare to nonexistent.
Utilizing the literature on racism a parallel approach to sexism was created. Swim
et al. (1995) used the symbolic and modern racism models to study the prejudice and
discrimination of men towards women, a new type of prejudice that has become
increasingly subtle. The similarities between racism and sexism became clear.
Many researchers have suggested connections between modern racism and modern
sexism (Butler and Geis, 1990). As with racism, literature regarding sexism suggests
that fewer people endorse old-fashioned prejudicial beliefs, such as unequal treatment
of women. However, behaviors remain that are inconsistent with these more liberal
attitudes toward women’s roles. For example, family roles are still inequitably divided,
even for women with professional jobs (Biernat and Wortman, 1991). The specific
beliefs that underlie modern racism and modern sexism are also similar: (a) denial of
continued discrimination; (b) hostility toward Blacks’ and women’s demands; and
(c) resentment about what are believed to be special privileges, such as affirmative
action policies. Thus, although people ostensibly reject old-fashioned sexual
discrimination and stereotypes and may believe that discrimination against women
 Social Work Education 563
no longer exists, they may still feel hostility toward women who are making political
and economic demands and resent special policies that favor women.
Findings regarding attitudes of Whites toward Blacks and of men toward women
show that they are multidimensional in their beliefs and are far more liberal than in the
past (Katz and Hass, 1988). Similarly to racism and sexism, research is showing that
sexual prejudice is multidimensional and this is discussed below.

Modern and Aversive Heterosexism

Lesbians and gay men have made significant advances in civil rights and legal
protections; however, contradictions similar to those pointed out in the racial and
sexist literature are apparent (Massey, 2004). For example, although civil rights have
been granted for lesbians and gay men in employment, education and housing,
legislation against the rights of these groups continues to be debated in the United
States (Massey, 2004), and although in some European countries and a few states in
the US same-sex couples enjoy at least some degree of marriage recognition, most of
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

them do not recognize full marriage rights (Herek, 2006). According to Herek et al.
(1999) and the American Psychological Association (2002), some people believe
that discrimination against gay men and lesbians no longer exists. Thus, reports of
oppression by these groups seem overstated and false.
However, subtle sexual prejudice has become more apparent. Legislators speak
against granting lesbians and gay men ‘special rights’, and the media are disparagingly
labeled ‘liberal’ when they support equality (Massey, 2004).
Comparable to the expression of symbolic racism and sexism, heterosexist values
may also result in discriminatory behaviors and negative effects against lesbians and
gay men.
Bearing out this observation, Moreno and Bodenhausen (2001) in their study on
psychological ambivalence concluded that the negative behavioral implications of
people’s attitudes toward lesbians and gay men demonstrate that those who hold
egalitarian beliefs about gay people but also experience negative effects may display
discriminatory behaviors when it is socially acceptable to do so. Thus, according to
Massey (2004), when an opportunity presents itself to behave in a discriminatory
manner against gay people, subtle sexual prejudice will manifest. This can be
illustrated, for example, when workers at a hospital deny the access of a woman to see
her dying partner because of lack of domestic partnership laws in that state.

Queer Consciousness
A queer approach to social change is different from the approach taken by many in
the modern lesbian and gay rights movement. In the more conservative approach,
the struggle is for expansion of heterosexual standards to include lesbians, gay men
and bisexuals, and incorporation of their lifestyles and values into existing social
institutions (Massey, 2004). A queer approach, in contrast, requires rejection of
heterosexual norms, since these help maintain the existing oppressive power systems
 564 P. Martinez
and allow them to function (Jagose, 1996). According to Warner (1993), since the
ordinary understanding of sex and sexuality is created and reinforced by many social
institutions, people with queer consciousness are required to move beyond simply
asking for equality or tolerance and move instead towards actual restructuring of the
institutions.
Butler (1990) explained that behavior in ways that destabilize gender and sex
categories can serve to combat heterosexism. Sedgwick (1990) distinguished between
the views of sexual orientation that apply either exclusively to lesbians and gay men
or universally. In the exclusive view, only lesbians and gay men suffer from sexual
injustice, and in the universal view, the ideology of sexual injustice oppresses all
people, even including heterosexuals. According to Massey (2004), people with queer
consciousness believe in the universal view, although they may nevertheless mildly
support the struggle for the rights of lesbians and gay men to live freely in existing
society.
For some queer theorists, all classification is damaging, and all labeling must be
rejected in order to reject heterosexism. Massey (2004), however, suggested instead
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

that ‘queer activism is about being aware of how categorizations facilitate the
operations of power, but realizing at the same time that categorization is inevitable,
inescapable, and necessary’ (p. 89).
According to Massey (2004) those with queer consciousness may be suspicious of
social forces that seek to ‘normalize’ them, may oppose sexual and gender fixed
identities (homosexual–bisexual – heterosexual), may oppose biological or psychody-
namic explanations for sexual orientation, may value the progress of the gay movement
and the diversity offered by gay people and, may see differences as something that
should be celebrated. The dimensions associated with ‘queer consciousness’ provide a
means to better assess for sexual prejudice. To the extent that it measures the complex
aspects of sexual prejudice it assesses whether people view heterosexism as an ideology
that negatively affects only a small minority of lesbians and gay men or an ideology that
affects all people, whatever their sexual orientation (Massey, 2009). In this way this
multidimensional framework provides the basis to create more thorough educational
materials about sexual prejudice.

Attitude Changes toward Lesbians and Gay Men

Much change has taken place in the US (Massey, 2004), in the UK (Cosis Brown and
Kershaw, 2008; Dugmore and Cocker, 2008) and in many other countries in Europe
(Herek, 2006) regarding sexual prejudice. For example, many countries have passed
legislation to combat anti-discrimination and hate crimes; more openly gay people
have been elected to public offices and same-sex marriage has become legal in a few
countries in Europe and in some states in the United States. According to Massey
(2004) lesbians and gay men are represented differently and more positively in society
due to many social and political factors, including: the increasing exposure of lesbian
and gay rights organizations in the media; the creation of educational policies and
curriculum development that includes content on issues and lives of lesbians and gay
 Social Work Education 565
men as well as the impact of heterosexism; and the creation of entire departments
in universities that focus specifically on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
individuals, families and communities.
While these changes have occurred, there remains a need to be able to fully
understand the extent to which sexual prejudice manifests in the lives of all persons,
especially those charged with advocating for and providing services and treatment to
gay and lesbian clients and their families. Historically, the mental health professions
have contributed to the oppression of lesbians and gay men by labeling homosexuality
in the past as a mental disorder (Cabaj, 1996). The mental health professions, including
social work, became heavily influenced by modern psychiatry and psychoanalysis and
regarded homosexuality as a psychological abnormality (Herek, 2004). As a result,
treatments ranging from psychoanalysis to various forms of aversion therapies
were developed to ‘cure’ the homosexual individual. Instead of focusing on the
presenting problem, practitioners focused on changing the clients’ sexual orientation
(Herek, 2004).
The quality of services that agencies and social workers provide will depend upon
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

the extent to which social workers are knowledgeable and non-prejudicial (Newman
et al., 2002). This conclusion is supported by several researchers (Goldberg, 1982;
Serdaheley and Ziemba, 1984; Pagtolun-An and Chair, 1986; Stevenson, 1988; Ben-
Ari, 1998), who suggest activities that social service agencies can incorporate as part of
in-service training sessions and that can be incorporated into the classroom. These
activities include lectures and workshops on homosexuality, talks by openly gay
people, video presentations about lesbians and gay men, and exercises in which
participants role-play some life experiences of these groups. Further, Van Den Bergh
and Crisp (2004) recommend teaching students about community resources and
social service agencies specifically targeted for the lesbian and gay community as well
as effective methods for advocating for this minority population.
Such activities would provide knowledge and sensitize students to life experiences
for lesbians and gay men. However, these learning opportunities do not impel social
work students to recognize and examine the existence of the various domains of
sexual prejudice about sexual minorities and how they could possibly translate
into negative, although subtle, attitudes and practice behaviors that would be
counterproductive to work with this group of clients. It becomes important, then for
schools of social work to expand the focus in curriculum content regarding practice
with this vulnerable group.

A Multidimensional Perspective in the Curriculum

Many schools of social work offer courses about lesbian and gay issues. However, the
information that is provided is not sufficient and infusion of lesbian and gay topics
throughout the curriculum is needed (Gezinski, 2009). Teaching new knowledge,
practice skills and exploring beliefs/attitudes regarding this population can be
implemented in many courses across the curriculum, for example, Human Behavior
and Social Environment (HBSE), Practice with Individuals, Practice with Families and
 566 P. Martinez
Groups, and Policy. This modern multidimensional perspective suggests examining
old-fashioned (overt) forms of prejudice as well as new and subtle forms of sexual
prejudice.
An essential component of teaching future social work practitioners the necessary
knowledge, values and skills for successful practice is an understanding of and respect
for all people, especially those who are oppressed. The key to this educational process
is a means to provide greater understanding of the lives and needs of lesbians and gay
men as they continue to be a vulnerable population and are likely to continue to
experience discrimination that will limit their ability to function well (Wisniewski and
Tomey, 1987; Berkman and Zinberg, 1997).
Schools of social work are specifically charged with providing not only knowledge
for practice but also with making new social workers aware of their own biases.
Utilization of the multidimensional perspective in teaching would provide the base
for student self-exploration and discovery. Moreover, social work educators may want
to use the theoretical perspective presented in this paper as a means to add and
broaden content in their courses. Some suggestions for improving the curriculum are
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

provided below.
Pro-gay egalitarianism refers to the manifestation of sexual prejudice in more
subtle forms even though overt discrimination against lesbians and gay men is still
acceptable. The social work curriculum could integrate course content that would
teach and challenge traditional/overt homophobia and heterosexism. Some aspects of
course content could include drawing of similarities between overt forms of racism,
sexism and sexual prejudice in a historical perspective. This would assist in the
exploration of racism and sexism in their former overt forms and comparisons with
current overt expressions of sexual prejudice. Regarding subtle prejudice, course
content could provide supportive evidence that clarifies the continued oppression
and discrimination against this group even though some people believe that
discrimination against lesbians and gay men no longer exists, that lesbians and gay
men have equal opportunities for advancing professionally, and that reports of
discrimination are unreasonable. Similarly, course content could draw similarities
among subtle racism, sexism and subtle sexual prejudice. Discussions in the classroom
could be stimulated by including McIntosh’s (1990) article about White privilege to
illustrate institutionalized oppression. Also social welfare policy issues that perpetuate
institutionalized heterosexism by promoting heterosexual marriage can be used in
students’ explorations.
Modern and aversive heterosexism refers to discriminatory behaviors in spite of
growing acceptance of lesbians and gay men. The social work curriculum could
integrate course content with specific information about the nature of sexual prejudice
and how it manifests in subtle behavioral ways in spite of one publicly declaring
tolerance or acceptance. This would afford students wonderful opportunities to
help identify their own bias while they are in a guided and supportive learning
environment. Incorporating various journal articles about lesbian and gay issues
throughout the social work curriculum in areas such as youth, families, aging and
mental health (Gezinski, 2009) may be useful in exploring the manifestation of subtle
 Social Work Education 567
prejudice. Moreover, since contact with lesbians and gay men has been shown to have
the most impact on aversion and is the best predictor of positive attitudes toward this
population (Massey, 2009), schools of social work should invite openly lesbian and gay
speakers to make presentations in the classroom as well as continue to recruit openly
lesbian and gay students and faculty.
Queer consciousness refers to the rejection of all labeling of sexual and gender
identities and the opposition of biological or psychodynamic explanations for sexual
orientation. Since prior research suggests that people who embrace conservative
standards of sexual morality and traditional gender roles also tend to express negative
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (Massey, 2004; Nierman et al., 2007), course
content could include information on gender ideology and its impact on sex and
gender roles that would help challenge traditional beliefs about sex and morality,
traditional male/female roles and traditions regarding sexuality. For example,
educators could provide students with information on the range of sex and gender
roles that are expressed within mainstream culture and compare with other cultures.
In class discussions students can explore their belief systems about females and males,
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

such as appropriate roles for each sex, beliefs about what makes certain sexual acts
normal or abnormal and perceptions of those who may be thought to violate the
traditional patterns of sex and gender roles, such as lesbians and gay men. Courses
could also emphasize students’ awareness of the privileges that come from being
heterosexual in a heteronormative world.
Having queer consciousness also suggests finding value in the progress and diversity
of lesbians and gay men. For example, realizing that homosexuality represents a
special quality that should be celebrated and emphasizing the contributions made to
society by the gay movement. Curriculum content could highlight lesbians’ and gay
men’s contributions to society in a variety of arenas, but especially in contributing to
knowledge about group advocacy bourn through their constant struggle for civil
rights. The infusion of this content would also stress for students the importance of
celebrating diversity, the importance of celebrating the uniqueness of each individual,
and the effects of heterosexist oppression. It would also be relevant to underscore
the variety of positive characteristics that are a consequence of either being
lesbian or gay in a heteronormative society. For example, by using a strengths
perspective, social workers can underscore the common characteristic of self-reliance,
social activism and authentic living that is found in many lesbians and gay men
(Riggle et al., 2008).

Concluding Remarks
The use of this multidimensional perspective can serve to inform social work
educators about the kinds of knowledge and learning experiences that are necessary to
address both the subtle and overt sexual prejudice social work students are likely to
bring with them into the learning environment. The addition and infusion of this
perspective to the social work curriculum would not only provide a framework for
knowledge building, but also an opportunity to challenge social work students to
 568 P. Martinez
examine their own overt and subtle attitudes and to grow professionally through
confrontation of this challenge.

References
American Psychological Association (APA) (2002) Testimony Submitted by the American
Psychological Association to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United
States Senate for the Hearing on Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
Ben-Ari, A. (1998) ‘An experiential attitude change: social work students and homosexuality’, Journal
of Homosexuality, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 59– 71.
Berkman, C. & Zinberg, G. (1997) ‘Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers’, Social Work,
vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 319– 332.
Biernat, M. & Wortman, C. B. (1991) ‘Sharing of home responsibilities between professionally
employed women and their husbands’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 60,
no. 6, pp. 844– 860.
Black, B., Oles, T., Cramer, E. & Bennet, C. (1998) ‘Attitudes and behaviors of social work students
toward lesbian and gay male clients: can panel presentations make a difference?’, Journal of Gay
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

and Lesbian Social Services, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 30– 37.

Boxer, A. M. & Carrier, J. M. (1998) ‘Evelyn Hooker: a life remembered’, Journal of Homosexuality,
vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1 – 17.
Butler, D. & Geis, F. L. (1990) ‘Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: implications
for leadership evaluations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 58, pp. 48– 59.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble, Routledge, New York.
Cabaj, R. P. (1996) ‘Introduction’, in Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, eds R. P. Cabaj &
T. S. Stein, American Psychiatric Press, Inc., Washington, DC.
Churchill, W. (1967) Homosexual Behavior among Males, Hawthorn Books, New York.
Cosis Brown, H. & Kershaw, S. (2008) ‘The legal context for social work with lesbians and gay men in
the UK: updating the educational context’, Social Work Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 122– 130.
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2002) Educational Policy, CSWE, Washington, DC,
paragraph 4.1.
Crisp, C. (2006) ‘The gay affirmative practice scale (Gap): a new measure for assessing cultural
competence with gay and lesbian clients’, Social Work, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 115– 126.
Dugmore, P. & Cocker, C. (2008) ‘Legal, social and attitudinal changes: an exploration of lesbian and
gay issues in training programme for social workers in fostering and adoption’, Social Work
Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 159– 168.
Foreman, M. & Quinlan, M. (2008) ‘Increasing social work students’ awareness of heterosexism and
homophobia—a partnership between a community gay health project and a school of social
work’, Social Work Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 152– 158.
Gezinski, L. (2009) ‘Addressing sexual minority issues in social work education: a curriculum
framework’, Advances in Social Work, vol. 10, no. 1 (spring), pp. 103– 113.
Goldberg, R. (1982) ‘Attitude change among college students toward homosexuality’, Journal of
American College Health, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 260– 268.
Halderman, D. (1991) ‘Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: a scientific
examination’, in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, eds J. C. Gonsiorek &
J. D. Weinrich, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Herek, G. M. (2000) ‘The psychology of sexual prejudice’, Current Directions in Psychological Science,
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19 – 22.
Herek, G. M. (2004) ‘Beyond “homophobia”: thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the
twenty-first century’, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 6– 24.
 Social Work Education 569
Herek, G. M. (2006) ‘Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science
perspective’, American Psychologist, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 2 – 23.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, G. R. & Cogan, J. C. (1999) ‘Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 67,
no. 6, pp. 945– 951.
Hicks, G. & Lee, T. (2006) ‘Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: trends and predictors’, Journal
of Homosexuality, vol. 51, pp. 57– 77.
Hylton, M. E. (2005) ‘Heteronormativity and the experiences of lesbian and bisexual women as social
work students’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 67– 82.
International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) (2004) Ethics in Social Work Statement
of Principles [online]. Available at: [Link] accessed 30 April 2009.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2004) Ethics in Social Work Statement of
Principles [online]. Available at: [Link] accessed 30 April 2009.
Jagose, A. (1996) Queer Theory: An Introduction, University Press, New York.
Jeyasingham, D. (2008) ‘Knowledge/ignorance and the construction of sexuality in social work
education’, Social Work Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 138– 151.
Katz, I. & Hass, R. G. (1988) ‘Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: correlational and
priming studies of dual cognitive structures’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
vol. 55, pp. 893 –905.
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.

Mackelprang, R. W., Ray, J. & Hernandez-Peck, M. (1996) ‘Social work education and sexual
orientation: faculty, student, and curriculum issues’, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 17– 31.
Martinez, P., Barsky, A. & Singleton, S. (forthcoming) ‘Exploring queer theory among social
workers’, manuscript submitted for publication.
Massey, S. G. (2004) Polymorphous Prejudice: Liberating the Measurement of Heterosexuals’ Attitudes
toward Lesbians and Gay Men, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The City University of
New York.
Massey, S. G. (2009) ‘Polymorphous prejudice: liberating the measurement of heterosexuals’
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men’, Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 147– 172.
McConahay, J. B. & Hough, J. C. Jr (1976) ‘Symbolic racism’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 32,
pp. 23– 45.
McIntosh, P. (1990) ‘White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack’, Independent School, vol. 49,
no. 2, pp. 31– 35.
Meezan, W. & Martin, J. I. (2009) Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
Populations, Routledge, New York.
Moreno, K. N. & Bodenhausen, G. B. (2001) ‘Intergroup affect and social judgment: feelings as
inadmissible information’, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, vol. 4, pp. 21– 29.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2008) Code of Ethics of the National Association of
Social Workers [online]. Available at: [Link] accessed
8 May 2009.
Newman, B. S., Dannenfelser, P. L. & Benishek, L. (2002) ‘Assessing beginning social work and
counseling students’ acceptance of lesbians and gay men’, Journal of Social Work Education,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 273– 288.
Nierman, J., Thompson, S. C., Bryan, A. & Mahaffey, A. L. (2007) ‘Gender role beliefs and attitudes
toward lesbians and gay men in Chile and the US’, Sex Roles, vol. 57, pp. 61– 67.
Pagtolun-An, I. & Chair, J. M. (1986) ‘An experimental study of attitudes toward homosexuals’,
Deviant Behavior, vol. 7, pp. 121– 135.
Raiz, L. & Saltzburg, S. (2007) ‘Developing awareness of the subtleties of heterosexism and
homophobia among undergraduate, heterosexual social work majors’, The Journal of
Baccalaureate Social Work, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 53 – 69.
 570 P. Martinez
Riggle, E. D. B., Whitman, J. S., Olson, A., Rostosky, S. S. & Strong, S. (2008) ‘The positive aspects of
being a lesbian or gay man’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, vol. 39, no. 2,
pp. 210– 217.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1990) Epistemology of the Closet, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Serdaheley, W. J. & Ziemba, G. J. (1984) ‘Changing homophobic attitudes through college sexuality
education’, Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 10, no. 1/2, pp. 109– 116.
Stevenson, M. R. (1988) ‘Promoting tolerance for homosexuality: an evaluation of intervention
strategies’, Journal of Sex Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 500 –511.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S. & Hunter, B. A. (1995) ‘Sexism and racism: old fashioned and
modern prejudices’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 199– 214.
Van Den Bergh, N. & Crisp, C. (2004) ‘Defining culturally competent practice with sexual minorities:
implications for social work education and practice’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 40,
no. 2, pp. 221– 238.
Warner, M. (1993) Fear of a Queer Planet, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Weinberg, G. (1972) Society and the Healthy Homosexual, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Wisniewski, J. J. & Toomey, B. J. (1987) ‘Are social workers homophobic?’, Social Work, vol. 32,
pp. 454– 455.
Social Work Education 2011.30:558-570.