By Macie Walker, Research Assistant, EdInsights, Graduate Student in Psychology at Sacramento State
In spring 2025, the CSU Student Success Network convened a focus group for the co-leaders of the three 2024-25 LGBTQIA2S+ communities of practice that emerged from interest and momentum generated at the Network’s spring 2024 LGBTQIA2S+ Symposium. The feedback and reporting from symposium, community of practice, and focus group participants highlighted areas where support for LGBTQIA2S+ students within the CSU needs to be improved: many of the issues are interrelated and thereby create a cycle of barriers that hinder support for LGBTQIA2S+ CSU community members. Inspired and informed by focus group data, this blog presents a commentary on some of the key challenges that impact LGBTQIA2S+ equity work across CSU campuses and offers questions for reflection about identifying and addressing barriers at your institution.
The Impact of Climate on Safety
The social and political climate, from the local to the national level, impacts LGBTQIA2S+ communities on CSU campuses. Focus group participants pointed to challenges resulting from broader social environments as a common experience. Community of practice members reported the pressures towards members of the LGBTQIA2S+ community resulting from national politics, which shaped the focus of their projects. One focus group member described how an intolerant local climate impacted LGBTQIA2S+ students’ comfort with using resources and engaging in spaces that would draw attention to them:
We have collectively, with our students, had conversations… and realized our students actually didn’t necessarily want this big [Pride] center right off the bat. They felt that [the Pride center] would be very vulnerable, that it wouldn’t be well attended, especially in the current political climate, especially given the [local climate].
The national political climate impacts students’ safety in accessing resources and influences how changemakers approach equity work by focusing upon changing climate on a smaller scale—such as at a specific university, or within the community around a college—which can have meaningful impacts on the security of community members. Noting the influence of both national and smaller-level climates on LGBTQIA2S+ people may also help to inform everyday difficulties around LGBTQIA2S+ advocacy.
Effective Use of Data
Data collection from LGBTQIA2S+ populations within the CSU system can be an important tool to identify disparities in academic and workforce outcomes and improve the belonging of LGBTQIA2S+ community members. With the increase of political and social hostility towards LGBTQIA2S+ groups, decisionmakers may re-evaluate the safety of collecting data about gender/sex/sexuality minorities.
While considering the safety of these vulnerable populations is important, stopping the collection of LGBTQIA2S+ data is likely to stall important equity work. Furthermore, if collecting new data is unsafe, universities may already have demographic information on gender and sexuality they can make use of. One focus group member described how financial incentives influence decisions about safety and LGBTQIA2S+ data-use:
On our end with working with the system and trying to figure out why we were collecting all of this data on sexuality and not using it in any meaningful way, and then having some remarks like ‘well, there’s essentially no financial reason to do so.’ And then they backpedal and are like, ‘well, but also the safety of students. We’re concerned about that,’ But it was already out of the bag.
Concern for student safety can serve as a red herring, drawing attention from LGBTQIA2S+ CSU community member’s needs under the guise of protection and care while further reproducing existing hardships. Generally, proper use of safe data security practices, and institutional commitment to student safety should allow for safe use of deidentified gender/sex/sexuality student and perhaps employee data in California. Discussing the practicality of safety concerns given proper data management, in addition to the benefits of analyzing LGBTQIA2S+ demographic data, can help to re-center the goal of identifying potential disparities affecting LGBTQIA2S+ communities. Alternatively, when institutional level data on these demographics is available, advocating for its use can improve knowledge while preventing the need to collect new data.
Funding Challenges
Funding support, or a lack thereof, is indicative of broader support for LGBTQIA2S+ community members. Lack of funding limits opportunities to create a supportive environment and foster community connection. Focus group participants expressed a desire for greater financial support for organizations serving LGBTQIA2S+ CSU community members. When it comes to trying to secure funding, the responsibility to fill funding gaps may pressure staff and faculty to maintain resources using their own money. One participant described their experience with receiving a small stipend for an LGBTQIA2S+ student welcome event:
$2,000 just doesn’t go very far to support hundreds of faculty and staff and students. And then the rest of the money is literally donations from our own members to support our own members. It’s just a cannibalizing feature: without any additional resources, monetary resources are just something that’s necessary.
Collaboration between LGBTQIA2S+ people, within and/or across CSU campuses, is hindered by a lack of funds, and without consistent opportunity to analyze LGBTQIA2S+ CSU data and demonstrate the need for institutional support a kind of cyclical reproduction of barriers to financial resources occurs. Data demonstrating the challenges LGBTQIA2S+ populations’ face can be used to justify funding for resources but costs money to collect, and we know that the decision to fund research examining LGBTQ2s+ outcomes or resources can be impacted by anti-LGBTQIA2S+ rhetoric. As a result, community members may be unaware of the commonality of the barriers they experience. Funding is essential to continue to serve students, faculty, and staff and remain committed to equity values despite external pressures, especially at campuses with more challenging climates.
Reflection and Recommendations
Challenges related to climate, data use, and finances affect one another, and the impact of each varies from university to university. Because understanding the situation on your campus is critical to making appropriate, context-specific decisions, familiarizing yourself with the state of LGBTQIA2S+ equity work at your specific campus to inform future actions may be helpful. Consider reflecting on the following questions:
- What does it mean to genuinely serve LGBTQIA2S+ students at this time?
- How do different climates at national, system, campus, and community levels impact the experiences of LGBTQIA2S+ people on your campus? Consider mapping the different levels of climate that affect populations at your university using a social ecological map.
- How does your university handle the use and collection of LGBTQIA2S+ demographic information? Are there any opportunities to better utilize demographic information that is already being collected?
- Which departments, offices, clubs, and other organizations are already engaging with LGBTQIA2S+ communities on your campus? How might you be able to partner with these other groups?
- How can more departments, offices, clubs, and other organizations demonstrate an active commitment to LGBTQIA2S+ equity-related work?