Understanding Discrimination on Campus: Social Identities and Incivility and Victimization

Background: College campuses have become increasingly diverse, yet students from marginalized groups often experience discrimination, ranging from derogatory comments to physical and sexual violence. Such experiences can contribute to negative outcomes, including attrition, psychosocial stress, and risk-taking behaviors. A growing body of research examines campus climate for marginalized students, often focusing on the experiences of particular groups (e.g. students of color, women, LGBQ). Though insightful, these studies tend to examine one identity (e.g., race) and utilize concomitant forms of identity-based discrimination (e.g., racist discrimination). However, some discriminatory behaviors are not explicitly linked to a particular social identity, and could happen to any student. Understanding the factors that can increase students’ risk for discrimination is critical to developing effective prevention and support initiatives. In this study, we examine the association between various social identities (race/ethnicity, citizenship, sex, ability-status, socio-economic status, religion, sexuality, and atypical gender expression) and students’ reports of personal (direct) and ambient (indirect) discrimination, both overt (hostility) and subtle (incivility).

Methods: We extracted data from a campus climate study conducted at a large public university (n = 2,568, 56.8% undergraduate, 60.9% female, 27.5% POC, 16.9% LGBQ, 18.9% first generation student, 11.2% international student, 7.5% disabled, 39.5% Christian). Scales assessed the frequency of personal and ambient incivility and hostility (on campus in the past year (0=never, 4=10 plus times). We conducted bivariate analyses and multivariable linear regressions.

Results: While controlling for social identity variables, age, and university affiliation, sex, socio-economic status, and citizenship were not significantly associated with any outcome, although some significant associations emerged at the bivariate level (e.g., SES and personal incivility; ability and all outcomes). Significant relationships emerged for race across the four outcomes, with select racial minority students at increased risk compared to white students (range .05 ≤ β ≤.18). Atypical gender expression (range .09 ≤ β ≤.17) and having disability (range .05≤ β ≤.10) increased the risk for each type of discrimination. LGBQ students reported significantly more personal incivility (β=.07) and ambient hostility (β=.06). Differing from bivariate findings, Christian students reported significantly higher rates of ambient incivility than secular students (β=.06).

Conclusion & Implications: The findings generally suggest that minoritized students are at risk for experiencing subtle and overt discrimination. We will discuss important differences that emerged between the bivariate and multivariate findings, and outline recommendations for future research and addressing discrimination on campus.