A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF LGBT+ POLICIES IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAbstract
This article presents a systematic review of the literature on LGBT+ policies in higher education and addresses the following research question: Is there robust evidence regarding the role of LGBT+ policies in promoting equal opportunities and social redress and reducing violence in university settings? Four information sources were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, and the CAPES Journals Portal. The following inclusion criteria were adopted: a) publication type: peer-reviewed scientific articles; b) level of education: higher education; c) research field: humanities and social sciences; and d) object of study: LGBT+ affirmative action, equality, or diversity policies. Applying these criteria yielded 1,105 records, of which 40 articles were eligible. Data were extracted from the selected articles using 11 descriptors to: map the research field by describing the landscape of scientific production on LGBT+ policies in higher education; and organize the findings through a configurative thematic synthesis that accounted for data heterogeneity. The findings indicate that LGBT+ policies in higher education can promote inclusion, equal opportunities, and student safety, although their effectiveness depends on implementation and institutional commitment. Moreover, although some policies may be predominantly symbolic, their absence may have even more negative effects on the university environment.
Keywords:
LGBTQIAPN+; higher education; sexual and gender minorities.
Resumo
Este artigo apresenta uma revisão sistemática da literatura sobre as políticas LGBT+ no ensino superior, com o objetivo de responder à seguinte questão de pesquisa: existem evidências robustas sobre o papel das políticas LGBT+ na promoção da igualdade de oportunidades, na reparação social e na redução da violência no contexto universitário? Foram consultadas quatro bases de dados: Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO e Portal de Periódicos da CAPES. Para a seleção dos estudos, foram adotados os seguintes critérios de inclusão: a) Formato do trabalho: artigos científicos revisados por pares; b) Nível de ensino: ensino superior; c) Área de pesquisa: Ciências Humanas e Sociais; e d) Objeto de estudo: políticas de ações afirmativas LGBT+, políticas de igualdade e políticas de diversidade. A aplicação desses critérios resultou na identificação de 1.105 registros e na seleção de 40 artigos elegíveis. Os artigos selecionados foram submetidos à extração de dados com base em 11 descritores, com as seguintes finalidades: mapear o campo de pesquisa de modo a descrever o panorama da produção científica sobre as políticas LGBT+ no âmbito do ensino superior; e organizar os resultados por meio de uma síntese temática configurativa, considerando a heterogeneidade dos dados. Os resultados indicam que as políticas LGBT+ no ensino superior podem promover inclusão, igualdade de oportunidades e segurança para os estudantes, mas sua eficácia depende da implementação e do comprometimento institucional. Além disso, embora algumas dessas políticas possam assumir caráter predominantemente simbólico, sua ausência pode produzir efeitos ainda mais negativos no ambiente universitário.
Palavras-chave:
LGBTQIAPN+; educação superior; minorias sexuais e de gênero.
Resumen
Este artículo presenta una revisión sistemática de la literatura sobre las políticas LGBT+ en la educación superior, con el objetivo de responder a la siguiente pregunta de investigación: ¿existen evidencias robustas sobre el papel de las políticas LGBT+ en la promoción de la igualdad de oportunidades, la reparación social y la reducción de la violencia en el contexto universitario? Se consultaron cuatro fuentes de información: Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO y el Portal de Revistas de la CAPES. Para seleccionar los estudios, se adoptaron los siguientes criterios de inclusión: a) tipo de publicación: artículos científicos revisados por pares; b) nivel educativo: educación superior; c) área de investigación: ciencias humanas y sociales; y d) objeto de estudio: políticas de acción afirmativa LGBT+, políticas de igualdad y políticas de diversidad. La aplicación de estos criterios permitió identificar 1.105 registros y seleccionar 40 artículos elegibles. Los datos de los artículos seleccionados se extrajeron mediante 11 descriptores con las siguientes finalidades: mapear el campo de investigación y describir el panorama de la producción científica sobre las políticas LGBT+ en la educación superior; y organizar los resultados mediante una síntesis temática configurativa que consideró la heterogeneidad de los datos. Los resultados indican que las políticas LGBT+ en la educación superior pueden promover la inclusión, la igualdad de oportunidades y la seguridad de los estudiantes, aunque su eficacia depende de la implementación y del compromiso institucional. Además, aunque algunas políticas puedan tener un carácter predominantemente simbólico, su ausencia puede producir efectos aún más negativos en el entorno universitario.
Palabras clave:
LGBTQIAPN+; educación superior; minorías sexuales y de género.
1 INTRODUCTION
Historically, studies of diversity in education have privileged analyses centered on race, ethnicity, and gender inequalities, relegating discussions of sexual minorities in educational contexts to a secondary position (Renn, 2010; Lange; Duran; Jackson, 2019). In recent decades, however, research has emerged to address this gap, highlighting crucial aspects of the experiences of LGBT+1 people in higher education. This work has focused primarily on two analytical strands: a) studies of LGBT+ identities, which explore visibility and identity development among LGBT+ academics (identity studies); and b) assessments of institutional climate (campus climate studies), which investigate the perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ students and professionals in university settings (Renn, 2010).
Among these approaches, institutional climate studies stand out for their threedimensional perspective, examining: a) the experiences of LGBT+ people at universities; b) perceptions of this population in academic settings; and c) policies and programs designed to improve living and working conditions on campuses (Renn, 2010). These three domains are essential for understanding not only the conditions that support the persistence of LGBT+ people in higher education, but also the incidence and effects of prejudice, harassment, and violence within these institutions (Rankin, 2005; Rankin et al., 2010; Garvey; Sanders; Flint, 2017; Soria, 2018).
The extensive evidence of discrimination, harassment, and exclusion affecting LGBT+ people at higher education institutions worldwide, intersecting with variables such as race, gender, disability, and social class (Renn, 2010; Lange; Duran; Jackson, 2019), has underscored the need to communicate these findings to policymakers and legislators in order to transform inequalities and address violence at universities, as has also been advocated in basic education (Russell, 2011). Findings from different studies of institutional climate in higher education suggest that violent environments negatively affect students' mental health, learning quality, and social interactions and may contribute to substance use and misuse, as well as suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and death by suicide (Russell, 2005). For this reason, researchers in the field have emphasized the importance of diversity in educational and social interactions, because engagement with diversity among university students produces a wide range of benefits, including initiatives that protect against anti-LGBT+ prejudice (Chang et al., 2004; Pascarella et al., 2001).
Experts have advocated combined strategies to promote inclusion in higher education. Kezar (2010, 2012, 2014), for example, emphasizes both the importance of human agency, expressed through student activism and the work of committed professionals, and the need for structural changes to university rules and regulations. Similarly, Tamtik and Guenter (2019) highlight the need for comprehensive policies that combine violence-prevention measures with educational programs for the entire academic community.
Public policies on inclusion and diversity, in particular, have emerged as crucial instruments. As Zemsky and Sanlo (2005) argue, these policies not only reduce discriminatory behavior but also promote equal opportunities by substantively changing institutional dynamics. Baumgart, Bass, and Gerber (2006) add that leading institutions have increasingly incorporated inclusive language into their documents, addressing dimensions such as sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. Although the precise mechanisms underlying this relationship require further investigation, evidence such as that presented by Taylor, Dockendorff, and Inselman (2018) suggests that inclusive policies increase LGBT+ students' sense of safety, positively influencing both their choice of institution and their persistence.
Given the dispersed nature of evidence on LGBT+ policies in higher education and the need to systematize this knowledge to inform researchers and policymakers, this study conducts a systematic literature review guided by the following research question: Is there robust evidence regarding the role of LGBT+ policies in promoting equal opportunities and social redress and reducing violence in university settings? By answering this question, the study seeks to contribute to the advancement of genuinely inclusive institutional practices in higher education.
2 METHODOLOGY
This study is a systematic literature review that considers both primary studies and secondary research and therefore incorporates features of a meta-review. Systematic reviews rigorously analyze the literature to answer a specific question by applying a replicable search strategy and including or excluding studies according to explicit criteria (Gough; Oliver; Thomas, 2012). This type of research makes it possible to synthesize the knowledge available in a particular field and identify priorities for future investigation. It can also address questions that individual studies may be unable to answer and, ultimately, has the potential to formulate or assess explanatory theories concerning how or why particular phenomena occur (Page et al., 2022).
To ensure rigorous and transparent reporting of the systematic review of policies addressing the LGBT+ population in higher education, the PRISMA 2020 checklist was adopted. The checklist consists of 27 items that guide the reporting of systematic reviews. Although the guideline was originally designed for quantitative syntheses in health research, its use is recommended and feasible in qualitative research in the humanities and social sciences, provided it is appropriately adapted to the object and methods of the study. This review followed the applicable items, except those concerning assessment of the certainty of evidence and the presentation of effect measures and statistical heterogeneity, because the qualitative and inductive configurative synthesis, based on thematic analysis of the eligible studies, did not employ statistical procedures. This methodological adaptation is consistent with PRISMA 2020 guidance, which recognizes the guideline's applicability to qualitative reviews (Page et al., 2022).
2.1 Data collection and study selection procedures
Data were collected in September 2023 and updated in June 2025 through searches of four information sources: Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, and the CAPES Journals Portal. The search strategy was structured around combinations of keywords in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, according to the languages accepted and resources available in each source. The following combinations were used: a) (“affirmative action policies” AND “LGBT” AND “gay” AND “trans” AND “university” OR “higher education”); b) (“diversity policies” AND “LGBT” AND “university” AND/OR “higher education”); c) (“public policy” AND “LGBT” AND “university” AND “higher education”); d) (“quota law” AND “LGBT”); e) (“university admission” AND “LGBT”); f) (“minority groups” AND “affirmative action policies” AND “university”); g) (“educational equity” AND “LGBT”); and h) (“entering university” AND “LGBT”).
The study selection process was conducted independently by different reviewers. The following inclusion criteria were adopted: publication type, peerreviewed scientific articles; level of education, higher education; research field, humanities and social sciences; and object of study, LGBT+ affirmative action, equality, or diversity policies. Documents that did not meet these criteria were excluded. No restrictions were imposed on publication period, nor were only the most highly cited articles considered.
The 1,105 records retrieved were examined individually by reading their titles, abstracts, and keywords to identify studies that presented data on policies addressing the LGBT+ population in higher education. After this stage, 44 articles were selected for full-text review. The full texts were then read to determine whether the studies effectively met the established inclusion criteria. This process resulted in the exclusion of four articles and the retention of 40 studies considered eligible (Figure 1).
2.2 Analytical descriptors
The 40 eligible studies underwent data extraction to systematically map scientific production on the topic and synthesize the findings. For this purpose, the studies were charted using the 11 descriptors presented in Table 1.
2.3 Analysis of the results
Based on the data collected using the descriptors presented above, the articles were systematically mapped to characterize the research field and provide an overview of global scientific production on LGBT+ policies in higher education. A configurative thematic synthesis2 (Gough; Oliver; Thomas, 2012) was then conducted, comprising a qualitative and inductive analysis of the data in light of the central research question. This process produced eight emergent thematic categories (Table 2), organized into two main analytical strands: a) LGBT+ policies aimed at equality and historical redress; and b) Policies addressing violence against LGBT+ people.
To ensure the reliability of the interpretations, protocols were developed to define the coding criteria for the thematic categories and the procedures for resolving disagreements among coders. The research team reviewed the preliminary codes to harmonize individual coding, reclassify codes when necessary, and identify common thematic patterns.
To ensure the validity of the thematic categories, the principle of mutual exclusivity was adopted. Thus, even when an article contained elements that could be classified under more than one theme, priority was given to the study's most comprehensive issue (Bardin, 2002). Cases involving ambiguous data or interpretive disagreements were discussed by all reviewers participating in the study, with the collaboration of other researchers from the same research group as the authors.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Overview of articles on LGBT+ policies in higher education
Forty articles met the inclusion criteria established for this systematic review (Table 2).
The earliest study on the topic was published in 2008, whereas the most recent studies were published in 2025 (Figure 2). Most articles were national studies (21 articles) or local studies (16 articles). Only three articles had an international scope.
Regarding geographic context, most studies were conducted in the United States, with 18 articles, and Brazil, with 12. Three studies did not focus on a specific country: two systematic literature reviews and one study that adopted a transnational perspective. The remaining studies focused on the United Kingdom, with three articles, and Australia, Spain, Ireland, and Italy, with one article from each country.
The objects of analysis in the articles included in the review were classified, in descending order of frequency, as follows: students, in 12 studies; institutions, including graduate programs, in eight studies; case law or legislation, in five studies; higher education professionals and staff, in five studies; documents and reports, in four studies; curricula, in three studies; websites, in three studies, one of which also analyzed students; and faculty members, in one study. Samples varied according to each study's object of analysis.
Surveys were the predominant study design, appearing in 11 articles. The other designs comprised theoretical essays, in seven studies; documentary research, in six; empirical research, in five; narrative inquiries, in three; systematic literature reviews, in two; and a case study, a case report, and a traditional literature review, in one study each. Three studies also used hybrid approaches: documentary research and narrative inquiry; empirical and documentary research; and bibliographic and documentary research. Together, surveys, empirical studies, and narrative inquiries accounted for 19 studies (47.5%). Hybrid approaches accounted for three studies (7.5%), indicating a tendency to combine methods. Systematic literature reviews were less common, representing two studies (5%), possibly because of their methodological complexity.
Regarding the LGBT+ population investigated, most studies adopted a broad approach that included different sexual and gender minorities, for a total of 32 articles. Two studies of diversity in higher education did not specify the population investigated because they analyzed diversity policies that also included other minoritized groups in addition to LGBT+ people. Four studies focused specifically on trans people, one on gay men and lesbians, and one exclusively on bisexuality.
3.2 Configurative synthesis
a) LGBT+ policies aimed at equality and historical redress
Governmental and institutional equality and diversity policies
The studies analyzed under this theme show that governmental policies intended to promote LGBT+ equality in higher education vary considerably according to political and institutional context. Nevertheless, they share challenges related to effective implementation and the sustainability of their initiatives (Moehlecke, 2009; Robinson; Spivey, 2011; Ribeiro; Cunha, 2015; Ferreira; Vanin, 2016; Jones, 2019; Galego, 2023; Campos; Piana, 2024; Silva; Moutinho, 2024).
In Brazil, the demands of the LGBT+ movement became increasingly aligned with public policy formulation from the 2000s onward, most notably through the 2004 Brazil without Homophobia Program and the 2009 National Plan for the Promotion of Citizenship and Human Rights of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexuals, Travestis, and Transsexuals. These initiatives sought to incorporate sexual and gender diversity into universities through curricular guidelines, teacher education, research incentives, and measures designed to ensure LGBT+ students' access and persistence (Ribeiro; Cunha, 2015; Galego, 2023). Despite advances in the formulation of these policies, however, the studies identify a persistent gap between the development of guidelines and their implementation, owing to obstacles such as discontinuity across administrations, the absence of specific regulations, and the fragmentation of diversity agendas within ministerial structures (Moehlecke, 2009; Galego, 2023).
South Africa provides another paradigmatic example of institutional progress, in which the constitutional protection of LGBT+ rights has enabled significant advances in educational policy. According to the study analyzed, South Africa has become a continental reference point for promoting the educational rights of LGBT+ people, grounding its actions in two pillars: a human rights perspective and postcolonial resistance to Western classifications of gender and sexuality (Jones, 2019). Despite these advances, limitations were identified arising from political leaders' ambivalence toward the LGBT+ agenda and insufficient resources for transnational cooperation initiatives (Jones, 2019). In this respect, evidence from Brazil and South Africa shows that, even when stable institutional mechanisms and some degree of legal protection are in place, the promotion of LGBT+ equality depends on continued negotiation between normative achievements and implementation-related vulnerabilities.
With respect to affirmative action, higher education access policies have historically privileged race and class, relegating the specific demands of LGBT+ people, particularly trans and travesti people, to a secondary position (Ferreira; Vanin, 2016; Campos; Piana, 2024; Silva; Moutinho, 2024). In Brazil, this marginalization is reflected in current data: although approximately one quarter of Brazilian federal universities have adopted some form of reserved places for trans people in graduate programs, these initiatives remain exceptions within the higher education system (Silva; Moutinho, 2024). These findings suggest a fundamental contradiction in the trajectory of diversity policies in Brazilian higher education: although the country has become an international reference point in debates on LGBT+ rights, it continues to face difficulty translating this discourse into effective institutional practices (Galego, 2023).
The studies indicate that overcoming this paradox requires consolidating legal frameworks that move beyond recommendations and become binding; creating permanent mechanisms to evaluate and improve implemented policies; and recognizing intersectionality as a guiding principle for affirmative action (Ferreira; Vanin, 2016; Campos; Piana, 2024; Silva; Moutinho, 2024).
In addition, analysis of the United States shows that, in conservative political contexts, the absence of federal anti-discrimination legislation makes university policies vulnerable to ideological interference, especially at public institutions subject to state-government control (Robinson; Spivey, 2011). This institutional fragility reinforces the need for robust nationwide legal mechanisms to protect LGBT+ rights in higher education regardless of political fluctuations (Robinson; Spivey, 2011; Galego, 2023).
Taken together, the studies show that the effectiveness of equality and diversity policies depends not only on their creation but also on institutional sustainability, including guaranteed budgetary resources and continuity beyond governmental cycles; intersectoral coordination through the integration of educational, legal, and social-assistance initiatives; clear regulations grounded in laws or decrees that withstand administrative changes; and systematic monitoring capable of moving beyond inclusive rhetoric to ensure concrete outcomes (Moehlecke, 2009; Ribeiro; Cunha, 2015; Galego, 2023).
These findings show that, although governmental policies are essential to promoting LGBT+ equity, their implementation faces structural challenges that require not only political commitment but also accountability mechanisms and social participation, in order to prevent policy frameworks from remaining unimplemented.
Social impacts of LGBT+ policies
Analysis of studies on the social impacts of LGBT+ policies shows that implementing these policies at higher education institutions produces effects extending beyond the individual sphere and influences institutional dynamics, organizational culture, and equity indicators. The studies indicate that inclusive policies are associated with more diverse academic environments, with measurable effects on the composition of faculty and student bodies. When institutions adopt measures such as same-sex partner benefits or explicit nondiscrimination policies, for example, they create symbolic indicators that signal an organizational climate favorable to diversity. These measures can attract professionals and students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds and with different sexual identities. This occurs because such policies are interpreted as evidence of a broader institutional commitment to inclusion and the valuing of diversity, positively influencing the recruitment and retention of socially vulnerable and discriminated groups (Cook; Glass, 2008; Hastings; Mansell, 2015).
The studies nevertheless reveal significant disparities in how institutions monitor and address the specific needs of LGBT+ people. Some universities have advanced the systematic collection of demographic data on sexual orientation and gender identity, considered essential to developing evidence-based policies, while others retain information gaps that hinder accurate assessment of representation and the barriers these groups face. This asymmetry reveals different levels of institutional maturity in addressing diversity, with direct implications for the effectiveness of affirmative action. In this regard, researchers argue that the absence of consistent data not only renders existing inequalities invisible but also limits institutions' ability to develop support mechanisms suited to the specific needs of LGBT+ students and professionals (Shin et al., 2011; Crowhurst; Emslie, 2014).
The negative impacts arising from the absence of inclusive policies are particularly evident at religiously affiliated institutions, where a lack of explicit protections tends to foster hostile environments, with measurable consequences for the mental health and well-being of LGBT+ people. Such settings exhibit a higher incidence of discriminatory practices, ranging from the denial of basic resources, such as permission to establish student support groups, to the tolerance of conversion therapies, contrary to established ethical and scientific guidelines. These environments not only harm LGBT+ students' academic and professional development but also compromise academic freedom and pluralism of ideas, which are fundamental values of higher education institutions (Wolff et al., 2020).
In Brazil, research highlights the transformative role of specific policies, such as recognition of the chosen name in the academic experiences of trans people. Although they may appear to be simple measures, these policies have significant effects on selfesteem and sense of belonging, contributing to this population's persistence and academic success. Evidence indicates that their implementation constitutes an act of recognition and validation of identities historically marginalized within university settings (Silveira; Oliveira Júnior; Luz, 2022).
More broadly, the studies suggest that the social impacts of LGBT+ policies in higher education operate at two complementary levels. Symbolically, they function as markers of institutional values and influence perceptions and behavior. Materially, they create support structures that concretely alter conditions of access, persistence, and academic and professional development. This duality helps explain why even apparently sector-specific policies can produce systemic effects and contribute to transforming organizational culture as a whole (Cook; Glass, 2008; Hastings; Mansell, 2015; Wolff et al., 2020).
Legal and sociolegal aspects of LGBT+ affirmative action policies
The studies analyzed in this section reveal that implementing policies for LGBT+ people in higher education is deeply connected to legal disputes and constitutional interpretations that vary across national contexts (Bondarenko, 2014; Brown Jr., 2015; Davis, 2017; Tassigny; Luz, 2019). One fundamental distinction identified in the research is the conceptual difference between traditional anti-discrimination policies and LGBT+ affirmative action. The former operate reactively and protectively, seeking to prevent and curb discriminatory practices against LGBT+ people, whereas affirmative action is proactive and multifaceted, with the following aims: promoting diversity on campuses and in classrooms; redressing historical and contemporary discrimination; ensuring representation; and equalizing opportunities for access to and persistence in higher education (Davis, 2017).
This operational distinction has direct implications for the legal debates analyzed. Although anti-discrimination policies generally encounter less legal resistance, affirmative action requires a more robust constitutional basis, which varies according to each country's legal framework. In the United States, where the constitutionality of these policies is frequently challenged, the application of different levels of judicial scrutiny3 to LGBT+ policies, such as rational basis review, has been decisive for their viability (Bondarenko, 2014; Brown Junior, 2015; Davis, 2017).
According to Davis (2017, p. 58), in the United States:
The Supreme Court is reluctant to incorporate new groups into intermediate or strict scrutiny review and has not done so since 1988. For LGBTQ communities, this has proven true, as the Court declined to apply heightened scrutiny in each of the Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor cases. I venture to say that this level of scrutiny for sexual minorities is unlikely to change soon, given that the Court had three opportunities over the past quarter century to do so and declined each time.
This standard of review, which is less stringent than strict scrutiny, allows higher education institutions to justify affirmative action on broader grounds without having to demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” (Davis, 2017). Nevertheless, even when subject to the more rigorous compelling-governmental-interest test, institutions have effective lines of argument available, particularly by demonstrating how the presence of LGBT+ students expands academic and pedagogical diversity on campuses. According to Davis (2017), this argument has gained increasing legal recognition.
In Brazil, affirmative action for trans people is supported by the university autonomy guaranteed under the Constitution, which allows certain institutions to implement quota policies through administrative resolutions. The foundations of these initiatives, historical redress, distributive justice, and the promotion of diversity, reflect a broad understanding of the social role of public universities. Their effectiveness nevertheless continues to face challenges, including inconsistent application across institutions and the need for stronger coordination with student persistence policies (Tassigny; Luz, 2019).
Researchers recommend integrating legal justifications into more comprehensive affirmative action proposals. Although some universities already consider sexual orientation and gender identity in their selection processes and support structures, these initiatives remain limited in scope and are generally concentrated in contexts already supported by regulatory frameworks protecting LGBT+ rights, as occurs in some states. This situation points to the need for legal foundations that institutionalize affirmative action as nationwide public policy rather than leaving it as a localized or contingent initiative (Bondarenko, 2014; Brown Junior, 2015; Davis, 2017; Tassigny; Luz, 2019).
Curricular inclusion of LGBT+ issues
Analysis of the studies in this section shows that LGBT+ issues are incorporated into higher education curricula unevenly, with isolated advances alongside structural challenges. Research conducted in different national contexts (Jennings, 2012; Graupe; Locks; Pereira, 2018; BrckaLorenz; Duran; Haeger, 2021; Murphy; Ní Dhuinn, 2022) demonstrates that, although the importance of this content is recognized, effective implementation faces barriers such as the hierarchical ranking of different forms of diversity, insufficient faculty training, and institutional resistance.
In the United States, studies reveal that topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity are often given lower curricular priority than other dimensions of diversity, such as race and disability (Jennings, 2012). This marginalization appears in the sporadic and unsystematic inclusion of LGBT+ content or in its complete absence, justified by arguments such as a lack of relevance to professional education, student disinterest, or time constraints (Jennings, 2012).
Students' perceptions of such inclusion vary significantly by field of study. Students in the humanities report greater familiarity with these topics than students in the exact and natural sciences (BrckaLorenz; Duran; Haeger, 2021). This disparity reflects a broader educational disconnect, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), where LGBT+ issues are often viewed as unrelated to the curriculum (BrckaLorenz; Duran; Haeger, 2021). Similar findings were presented by Reggiani, Gagnon, and Lunn (2023) in a study addressing broader issues concerning the inclusion and visibility of LGBT+ students in STEM fields, analyzed in another section of this article.
Medical education illustrates the consequences of this curricular gap. Honigberg et al. (2017) found that the limited amount of time devoted to LGBT+ health, an average of 22 hours over the entire degree, was associated with students' discomfort when caring for LGBT+ patients. This situation was compounded by the fact that 40% of participants had never had clinical contact with transgender people. These findings suggest that the mere presence of LGBT+ content in curricula is insufficient without opportunities for practical application, reinforcing the need to integrate theory with clinical experience. Strategies such as placements in specialized health services and simulations addressing gender and sexuality were identified as promising alternatives for narrowing this educational gap (Honigberg et al., 2017).
In Brazil, research documents the formal existence of courses on gender and sexuality in teacher-education and graduate programs, but warns of the risk of merely nominal inclusion without consistent pedagogical treatment (Graupe et al., 2018). This criticism echoes international concerns about the gap between the symbolic incorporation of LGBT+ topics and their capacity to effectively transform educational practices. Promising counterexamples emerge from experiences such as teacher education in Ireland, where the systematic integration of LGBT+ issues into teachertraining curricula has the potential to foster more inclusive attitudes among future professionals (Murphy; Ní Dhuinn, 2022).
These studies reinforce that effective curricular inclusion requires moving beyond fragmented approaches toward intentional strategies capable of: a) challenging hierarchies of diversity that subordinate LGBT+ issues to other forms of difference; b) preparing faculty members to address genderand sexuality-related topics on a sound basis; c) connecting theory and practice, especially in professional fields such as health and education; and d) providing tools to understand and confront the forms of oppression affecting LGBT+ people.
As Woodford et al. (2014) demonstrate in their study of ally-training programs, curricular transformation requires more than simply adding content. It requires the development of support structures that sustain lasting cultural change and training programs focused on addressing violence against LGBT+ people, moving beyond the mere recognition of LGBT+ people's experiences of discrimination and prejudice.
The role of LGBT+ service supervisors in creating inclusive campuses
This section brings together two studies conducted in the United States that focused on the actions of student affairs administrators in promoting more inclusive university environments for LGBT+ students (Martin et al., 2018; Garcia et al., 2021), and a third study that focused on the structural challenges faced by graduate assistants responsible for supervising LGBT+ services (Tillapaugh; Catalano, 2019).
The findings indicate that, in settings where policies addressing anti-LGBT+ discrimination are more prominent, the committed actions of educational professionals become fundamental to promoting change in the university environment (Martin et al., 2018). This means that small changes can produce significant institutional transformations over the long term. Examples include: a) using formal, nonformal, and informal education to build more inclusive communities through educational programs that promote awareness and inclusion; b) training students, faculty, staff, administrators, and student leaders; c) forming student coalitions; d) establishing networks with stakeholders outside the institution; e) carrying out mobilization and quiet forms of resistance within institutional spaces, such as adding supportive decorations to offices; f) promoting measures to make the university environment more inclusive, such as creating gender-inclusive restrooms, updating genderidentification forms, and ensuring protection against discrimination; g) implementing conflict-resolution procedures; and h) creating LGBT+ resource centers (Martin et al., 2018; Tillapaugh; Catalano, 2019; Garcia et al., 2021).
The researchers also reiterate the need to understand commitment to diversity as a responsibility of the entire institutional community, rather than solely of professionals who belong to sexual and gender minorities. Inclusion goals should therefore be collectively embraced by the institution's professionals in order to promote collaborative transformation (Garcia et al., 2021). In this respect, the studies emphasize the need to create institutional structures that provide training, support, and appropriate conditions for these professionals to successfully develop LGBT+ inclusion initiatives (Tillapaugh; Catalano, 2019).
The three studies also indicate that professionals genuinely committed to advocating for students must go beyond individual support and demonstrate substantive engagement in challenging existing institutional structures, policies, and practices. By positioning themselves as advocates for LGBT+ rights, these professionals become role models and agents of change who encourage students to engage in activism (Martin et al., 2018; Tillapaugh; Catalano, 2019). This commitment should include training and investment in resources for LGBT+ student support services (Tillapaugh; Catalano, 2019).
Conversely, the studies highlight that the absence of a clear institutional position on inclusion, diversity, and equity initiatives (Garcia et al., 2021), as well as neutrality on the part of senior administration, can hinder the advancement of inclusive policies and practices for LGBT+ students. In this regard, Martin et al. (2018, p. 11) state:
Higher education administrators may not be intentionally hostile toward LGBTQ students, yet they may make decisions with little direct knowledge of how those decisions affect marginalized groups on campus.
The articles are therefore conclusive in indicating that the authority of university administrators and supervisors responsible for LGBT+ issues is essential to developing alternative solutions that produce effective institutional change.
Tools for developing and evaluating inclusion models
The studies analyzed under this theme demonstrate that building universities that are genuinely inclusive of LGBT+ people requires comprehensive tools for policy evaluation and implementation. As shown by Russo et al. (2023) in their analysis of the Campus Pride Index at Italian universities, institutions with the highest inclusion scores are those that develop integrated operational plans capable of addressing multiple institutional dimensions. These findings support the model proposed by Cembranel et al. (2023), which emphasizes the need for systemic action in teaching, research, community outreach, and university administration.
Russo et al. (2023) reveal that isolated initiatives, such as implementing a chosen-name policy known as Alias Career, although important, are insufficient on their own to ensure effective inclusion. The authors note that the highest-ranked universities combine this measure with other structural actions, including gender-sensitive education and curricula, training courses on LGBT+ issues for faculty and staff, collaboration with LGBT+ student groups and allies, participation by sexual-minority associations in anti-discrimination activities, and the provision of support services (Russo et al., 2023).
Complementarily, through a systematic literature review, Cembranel et al. (2023) propose a comprehensive model composed of specific indicators for each dimension of university activity. In education, the authors warn that insufficient LGBT+ representation in higher education curricula can contribute to discrimination, harm to mental health, and high suicide rates among LGBT+ people. They advocate implementing faculty-training programs on sexual and gender diversity to promote violence-free educational environments. For research, they recommend creating study groups and dedicated research lines on sexual diversity, as well as scholarships for LGBT+ students. In community outreach, they suggest developing projects and extracurricular activities that encourage active participation by the LGBT+ community. In university administration, they emphasize the importance of establishing permanent committees responsible for monitoring policy implementation.
Both studies, which focus on university models of LGBT+ inclusion, converge in highlighting the serious consequences of curricular and institutional exclusion, as corroborated by research discussed in previous sections. Russo et al. (2023) demonstrate that only comprehensive strategies aimed at improving all identified subdimensions produce significant impacts. Similarly, Cembranel et al. (2023) argue that institutional transformation requires simultaneous interventions in different areas of university life, ranging from curricular revision to the creation of specific administrative structures.
These studies offer complementary tools for promoting inclusion. Whereas the Campus Pride Index analyzed by Russo et al. (2023) provides a quantitative tool for institutional diagnosis, the model proposed by Cembranel et al. (2023) offers qualitative indicators specific to each dimension of university activity. Together, these studies reinforce that systemic, multidimensional, and coordinated approaches have greater potential to generate substantive transformations in the institutional culture of higher education, consistent with the findings discussed in previous sections.
b) Policies addressing violence against LGBT+ people
Perceptions and experiences of LGBT+ people at universities
Studies focusing on anti-LGBT+ prejudice reveal that, although universities have made progress in adopting nondiscrimination policies, LGBT+ people still experience everyday violence in academic environments, including harassment, discrimination, and public humiliation, perpetrated primarily by other students (Ellis, 2009; Costa et al., 2015; Afonso; Rodrigues; Oliveira, 2018; Pitcher et al., 2018; Feola; Santos, 2023; Reggiani; Gagnon; Lunn, 2023; Resch, 2023; Álvarez-Bernardo; García-Berbén; LaraGarrido, 2024). The frequency and intensity of these experiences vary according to students' fields of study (Costa et al., 2015; Feola; Santos, 2023; Reggiani; Gagnon; Lunn, 2023; Álvarez-Bernardo; García-Berbén; Lara-Garrido, 2024) and the perpetrators' identity-related and sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, sexual orientation, religious profile, political position, and level of knowledge about LGBT+ issues (Costa et al., 2015; Afonso; Rodrigues; Oliveira, 2018; Álvarez-Bernardo; GarcíaBerbén; Lara-Garrido, 2024).
In light of these perceptions and the indicators of violence observed at the institutions, student participants in the studies emphasized that university nondiscrimination policies provide a sense of institutional support even when students do not need to invoke them directly for protection. These arguments suggest that university policies function as mechanisms for communicating norms and values, materializing a kind of social contract. Similarly, the absence of such policies communicates institutional values that must be critically examined by those affected (Pitcher et al., 2018).
The studies analyzed demonstrate the need to focus attention on the organizational processes of higher education institutions as a means of increasing the frequency and quality of positive experiences, supporting LGBT+ students' academic success, and reducing the conditions that produce violence and inequality (Pitcher et al., 2018). Reggiani, Gagnon, and Lunn (2023, p. 14) emphasize this need:
Although universities raise rainbow flags or post messages on social media encouraging the celebration and visibility of LGBT+ people at particular times of year, such as Pride Month, LGBT+ History Month, or Trans Day of Remembrance, there is in fact very little evidence of meaningful and measurable institutional accountability for creating university communities in which choosing to be visible does not entail a risk of discrimination.
The measures recommended in the articles for preventing and addressing violence against LGBT+ people in university settings include: a) establishing sanctions for prejudiced behavior; b) incorporating LGBT+ issues into broader institutional inclusion policies and practices; c) including these issues in university curricula to promote education and awareness; d) implementing policies and practices for preventing and monitoring violence, including reporting channels and support services (Ellis, 2009; Pitcher et al., 2018; Feola; Santos, 2023); e) adopting inclusive admissions policies that consider gender-identity criteria extending beyond strictly biological conceptions (Resch, 2023); f) creating LGBT+ resource centers and organizations (Pitcher et al., 2018); g) disseminating anti-discrimination messages throughout institutional spaces (Costa et al., 2015; Feola; Santos, 2023); and h) fostering a university environment consistent with formally established inclusion policies (Pitcher et al., 2018; Feola; Santos, 2023).
Institutional representations of the LGBT+ population
Studies analyzing how higher education institutions represent the LGBT+ university population reveal that universities, while positioning themselves as welcoming spaces, frequently reproduce discourses that reinforce stereotypes and hierarchies among sexual and gender identities (Preston; Hoffman, 2015; Mosley et al., 2019; Pryor; Nachman, 2022).
Preston and Hoffman (2015) demonstrate that, by portraying LGBT+ students as inherently different and vulnerable, institutions may solidify an image of these individuals as lacking agency and depending exclusively on university programs to develop a sense of community. This representation contrasts with the portrayal of the external community as intrinsically threatening, establishing a false dichotomy between the university as a “safe space” and a hostile outside world. According to the authors, although this approach is well intentioned, it may subtly reinforce heterosexuality as the norm and preserve power structures that marginalize nonheteronormative identities.
This criticism becomes more pronounced when intersectionality is considered an important dimension of sexual and gender identities. Mosley et al. (2019) show that many counseling centers at U.S. universities lack adequate resources to address the specific needs of Black and Indigenous bisexual students, revealing how race, gender, and sexuality interact to produce distinct academic experiences. This gap in available services demonstrates that, even within the LGBT+ spectrum, certain identities are systematically neglected, especially those situated at multiple axes of oppression.
In this context, Pryor and Nachman (2022) argue that institutions must move beyond the mere rhetoric of the “safe space” and adopt an active stance in promoting equity. This involves not only creating anti-discrimination policies but also ensuring adequate funding for support centers, training professionals to address intersectional issues, and developing digital platforms that make reporting and support mechanisms transparent and accessible.
The three studies converge in indicating that effective transformation requires structural change. Preston and Hoffman (2015) emphasize the importance of reframing the language used in university programs by replacing passive discourse with narratives of activism and social transformation. Mosley et al. (2019) underscore the need for approaches that consider the multiple dimensions of identity, while Pryor and Nachman (2022) advocate expanding internal and external partnerships to strengthen support networks.
Taken together, these studies demonstrate that, beyond declaring support for diversity, universities must critically examine how their own discourses and practices may contribute to reproducing inequalities. In doing so, they can assume a more active role in building genuinely inclusive university environments.
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
The findings of this systematic literature review make it possible to answer the proposed research question. The body of research analyzed indicates that LGBT+ policies at universities play a relevant role in promoting equal opportunities, redressing historical inequalities, and reducing violence and discrimination in academic environments.
The adoption of chosen-name recognition policies, the creation of support centers, the implementation of ally-training programs, and the regulation of measures to prevent and address violence against LGBT+ people, for example, have the potential to produce significant long-term change and contribute to building safer and more inclusive university environments. This means that, even when these policies are predominantly symbolic within institutions (Davis, 2017; Pitcher et al., 2018), they communicate institutional values of welcome and protection. Conversely, the evidence suggests that the symbolic message conveyed by the absence of an LGBT+ policy is far more negative (Pitcher et al., 2018).
The effectiveness of these policies is intrinsically linked to their implementation and to institutional commitment. As Reggiani, Gagnon, and Lunn (2023) emphasize, many universities limit themselves to symbolic gestures, such as raising rainbow flags on commemorative dates, without adopting concrete measures to ensure that announced policies are implemented. This discrepancy between discourse and practice maintains structural barriers that perpetuate exclusion, including insufficient financial resources, cultural resistance, and the absence of consistent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
In this context, institutional actors such as university presidents, administrators, and policymakers play fundamental roles in promoting structural change. As Pitcher et al. (2018) point out, universities must move beyond the rhetoric of “individual resilience” and assume responsibility for creating concrete conditions that support LGBT+ students' persistence and academic success. This includes institutionalizing specialized services, supporting student self-organization, and integrating LGBT+ issues into curricula and access and persistence policies.
Although the challenges identified are considerable, the findings brought together in this review reinforce the importance of properly implemented LGBT+ policies as instruments of institutional and social transformation. Higher education institutions that adopt concrete measures, such as reporting and support channels, diversity committees, faculty-development programs, and ally-training initiatives, can help reduce violence and discrimination and promote a more pluralistic, equitable, and democratic academic environment.
Building genuinely inclusive higher education therefore requires the collective engagement of the entire university community, students, faculty, staff, and administrators, in defending equity, diversity, and social justice. Inclusion policies require resources, evaluation mechanisms, social participation, and sustained institutional commitment so that they do not remain confined to formal declarations.
1
2
3
STATEMENT ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
No artificial intelligence tools were used.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The complete dataset supporting the findings of this study has been published in the article and in the “Supplementary Materials” section.
REFERENCES
-
AFONSO, M. L. M.; RODRIGUES, M.; OLIVEIRA, E. F. Juventude universitária e direitos de cidadania: sentidos atribuídos à diversidade sexual. Cadernos de Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 48, n. 169, p. 948-972, jul./set. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/198053145364
» https://doi.org/10.1590/198053145364 -
ÁLVAREZ-BERNARDO, G.; GARCÍA-BERBÉN, A. B.; LARA-GARRIDO, A. S. Cultural competence and social work: sexual and gender diversity in two universities in the south of Europe. Journal of Homosexuality, Philadelphia, v. 71, n. 2, p. 432-455, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2122361
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2122361 - BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo São Paulo: Edições 70, 2002.
-
BAUMGART, L. A.; BASS, E. J.; GERBER, K. M. An analysis of university rank and the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policy statements. In: IEEE SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION ENGINEERING DESIGN SYMPOSIUM, 2006, New York. Proceedings […] New York: IEEE, 2006. p. 279-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS.2006.278690
» https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS.2006.278690 -
BONDARENKO, A. Between a rock and a hard place: why rational basis scrutiny for LGBT classifications is incompatible with opposition to LGBT affirmative action. Brooklyn Law Review, Brooklyn, v. 79, n. 4, p. 1703-1743, 2014. Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol79/iss4/7/ Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol79/iss4/7/ -
BRCKALORENZ, A.; DURAN, A.; HAEGER, H. Culturally engaging courses and campuses for LGBQ+ issues. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, Washington, v. 14, n. 3, p. 328-339, 2021. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fdhe0000177 Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fdhe0000177 -
BROWN JUNIOR., H. C. A crowded room or the perfect fit: exploring affirmative action treatment in college and university admissions for self-identified LGBT individuals. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Williamsburg, v. 21, n. 3, p. 603667, 2015. Available at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol21/iss3/3/ Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol21/iss3/3/ -
CAMPOS, M. M. C.; PIANA, M. C. O acesso de pessoas trans às universidades públicas brasileiras. SCIAS: Direitos Humanos e Educação, Belo Horizonte, v. 7, n. 2, p. 204- 218, 2024. Available at: https://revista.uemg.br/sciasdireitoshumanoseducacao/article/view/9138 Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://revista.uemg.br/sciasdireitoshumanoseducacao/article/view/9138 -
CEMBRANEL, P. et al. Sustainable universities: the LGBTQIAP+ inclusive model. Evaluation and Program Planning, Oxford, v. 100, p. 102351, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102351
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102351 -
CHANG, M. J.; ASTIN, A. W.; KIM, D. Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, Dordrecht, v. 45, p. 529-553, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032327.45961.33
» https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032327.45961.33 -
COOK, A.; GLASS, C. The impact of LGBT policies on ethnic/racial and gender diversity among business school faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, Washington, v. 1, n. 3, p. 193-199, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012987
» https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012987 -
COSTA, A. B. et al. Prejudice toward gender and sexual diversity in a Brazilian public university: prevalence, awareness, and the effects of education. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, New York, v. 12, n. 4, p. 261-272, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-015-0191-z
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-015-0191-z -
CROWHURST, M.; EMSLIE, M. Counting queers on campus: collecting data on queerly identifying students. Journal of LGBT Youth, Philadelphia, v. 11, n. 3, p. 276-288, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2013.879466
» https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2013.879466 -
DAVIS, G. K. Creating a roadmap to a LGBT affirmative action scheme: an article on parallel histories, the diversity rationale, and escaping strict scrutiny. National Black Law Journal, Los Angeles, v. 26, p. 43-84, , 2017. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9925t9sp Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9925t9sp -
ELLIS, S. J. Diversity and inclusivity at university: a survey of the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) students in the UK. Higher Education, Dordrecht, v. 57, n. 6, p. 723-739, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9172-y
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9172-y -
FEOLA, L. A.; SANTOS, A. E. C. dos. Pessoas LGBT+ e suas vivências educacionais no ensino superior: reconhecendo violências. Revista Latino-Americana de Geografia e Gênero, Ponta Grossa, v. 14, n. 1, p. 178-203, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5212/Rlagg.v.14.i1.0010
» https://doi.org/10.5212/Rlagg.v.14.i1.0010 -
FERREIRA, S. A. S.; VANIN, I. M. A invisibilização das pautas feministas e LGBT no processo de implantação das ações afirmativas na UFBA. Revista Feminismos, Salvador, v. 4, n. 2/3, p. 154-169, 2016. Available at: https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/feminismos/article/view/30257 Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/feminismos/article/view/30257 -
GALEGO, D. Brazil's LGBTQ public policy: a potemkin policy? Latin American Policy, Hoboken, v. 14, n. 3, p. 442-466, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12311
» https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12311 -
GARCIA, C. E. et al. Aligning student affairs practice with espoused commitments to equity, diversity, and inclusion. Journal of College Student Development, Baltimore, v. 62, n. 2, p. 137-153, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2021.0013
» https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2021.0013 -
GARVEY, J. C.; SANDERS, L. A.; FLINT, M. A. Generational perceptions of campus climate among LGBTQ undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, Baltimore, v. 58, n. 6, p. 795-817, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0065
» https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0065 - GOUGH, D.; OLIVER, S.; THOMAS, J. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews Los Angeles: Sage, 2012.
-
GRAUPE, M. E.; LOCKS, G. A.; PEREIRA, J. A. Políticas públicas de gênero em Santa Catarina: uma análise dos currículos de graduação e pós-graduação. Revista InterAção, Goiânia, v. 43, n. 3, p. 725-738, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5216/ia.v43i3.48951
» https://doi.org/10.5216/ia.v43i3.48951 -
HASTINGS, R.; MANSELL, O. Somewhere over the rainbow: the challenges and opportunities open to LGBT* staff. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, London, v. 19, n. 4, p. 122-126, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2015.1046531
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2015.1046531 -
HONIGBERG, M. C. et al. Curricular time, patient exposure, and comfort caring for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients among recent medical graduates. LGBT Health, New Rochelle, v. 4, n. 3, p. 237-239, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2017.0029
» https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2017.0029 -
JENNINGS, T. Sexual orientation topics in educational leadership programmes across the USA. International Journal of Inclusive Education, London, v. 16, n. 1, p. 1-23, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903518208
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903518208 -
JONES, T. South African contributions to LGBTI education issues. Sex Education, London, v. 19, n. 4, p. 455-471, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1535969
» https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1535969 -
KEZAR, A. Bottom-up/top-down leadership: contradiction or hidden phenomenon. The Journal of Higher Education, Columbus, v. 83, n. 5, p. 725-760, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777264
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777264 -
KEZAR, A. Faculty and staff partnering with student activists: unexplored terrains of interaction and development. Journal of College Student Development, Baltimore, v. 51, n. 5, p. 451-480, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0001 Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/39423 Accessed on: 20 out. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0001» https://muse.jhu.edu/article/39423 - KEZAR, A. How colleges change: understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York: Routledge, 2014.
-
LANGE, A. C.; DURAN, A.; JACKSON, R. The state of LGBT and queer research in higher education revisited: current academic houses and future possibilities. Journal of College Student Development, Baltimore, v. 60, n. 5, p. 511-526, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0047 Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/735229 Accessed on: 20 out. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0047» https://muse.jhu.edu/article/735229 -
MARTIN, G. et al. “Students at the margins”: student affairs administrators creating inclusive campuses for LGBTQ students in the South. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, Washington, v. 55, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2017.1345756
» https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2017.1345756 -
MOEHLECKE, S. As políticas de diversidade na educação no governo Lula. Cadernos de Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 39, n. 137, p. 461-487, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-15742009000200008
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-15742009000200008 -
MOSLEY, D. V. et al. Unseen and underserved: a content analysis of wellness support services for bi+ people of color and indigenous people on US campuses. Journal of Bisexuality, Philadelphia, v. 19, n. 2, p. 276-304, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2019.1617552
» https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2019.1617552 -
MURPHY, G.; NÍ DHUINN, M. The possibilities and potential of a pedagogical partnership between university and community-based initial teacher educators for LGBTQ+ specific inclusion and diversity. Frontiers in Education, Lausanne, v. 7, p. 1- 11, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.913610
» https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.913610 -
PAGE, M. J. et al The PRISMA 2020 statement: updated guidance for reporting systematic reviews. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, [S. l], v. 46, p. e112, 2022. Available at: https://iris.paho.org/items/a388618a-cdc0-493b-a263556aeedc31b6 Accessed on: 20 out. 2025.
» https://iris.paho.org/items/a388618a-cdc0-493b-a263556aeedc31b6 -
PASCARELLA, E. T. et al Do diversity experiences influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development, Baltimore, v. 42, n. 3, p. 257271, 2001. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ630563 Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ630563 -
PITCHER, E. N. et al. Affirming policies, programs, and supportive services: using an organizational perspective to understand LGBTQ+ college student success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, Washington, v. 11, n. 2, p. 117-132, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000048
» https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000048 -
PRESTON, M. J.; HOFFMAN, G. D. Traditionally heterogendered institutions: discourses surrounding LGBTQ college students. Journal of LGBT Youth, Philadelphia, v. 12, n. 1, p. 64-86, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.935550
» https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.935550 -
PRYOR, J. T.; NACHMAN, B. R. Conceptualizing digital campus climate within LGBTQ+ resource center websites: a critical discourse analysis. Innovative Higher Education, Dordrecht, v. 47, n. 4, p. 587-608, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-02109590-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-02109590-6 -
RANKIN, S. R. Campus climates for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student Services, San Francisco, n. 111, p. 17-23, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.170
» https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.170 - RANKIN, S. R. et al The 2010 state of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people Charlotte: Campus Pride, 2010.
-
REGGIANI, M.; GAGNON, J. D.; LUNN, R. J. LGBT+ academics’ and PhD students’ experiences of visibility in STEM: more than raising the rainbow flag. Higher Education, Dordrecht, v. 87, n. 1, p. 69-87, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00993-2
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00993-2 -
RENN, K. A. LGBT and queer research in higher education: the state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, Washington, v. 39, n. 2, p. 132-141, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10362579
» https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10362579 -
RESCH, K. Student voice in higher education diversity policies: a systematic review. Frontiers in Education, Lausanne, v. 8, p. 1039578, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1039578
» https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1039578 -
RIBEIRO, I. M.; CUNHA, J. Processos formativos no ensino superior e políticas públicas de diversidade sexual: relatos de algumas experimentações no campo da Psicologia. Revista Acadêmica Licencia&acturas, Ivoti, v. 3, n. 1, p. 17-26, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55602/rlic.v3i1.69
» https://doi.org/10.55602/rlic.v3i1.69 -
ROBINSON, C. M.; SPIVEY, S. E. Structuring injustice: partisan politics in the making and unmaking of James Madison University's Equal Opportunity Policy. Journal of Homosexuality, Philadelphia, v. 58, n. 9, p. 1306-1329, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.605742
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.605742 -
RUSSELL, S. T. Beyond risk: resilience in the lives of sexual minority youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, Philadelphia, v. 2, n. 3, p. 5-18, 2005.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v02n03_02
» https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v02n03_02 -
RUSSELL, S. T. Challenging homophobia in schools: policies and programs for safe school climates. Educar em Revista, Curitiba, v. 27, n. 39, p. 123-138, jan./abr. 2011. Available at: https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/583vzQ7YdV64Gkgjvv9Ky4Q/?lang=en&format=html Accessed on: 20 out. 2025.
» https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/583vzQ7YdV64Gkgjvv9Ky4Q/?lang=en&format=html -
RUSSO, T. et al. The LGBT+ University inclusion index and its application to Italian universities. Soft Computing, Berlin, v. 27, p. 10061-10076, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08320-8
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08320-8 -
SHIN, R. Q. et al. Attending to diversity representation among Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) master’s programs: a pilot study. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, Dordrecht, v. 33, n. 2, p. 113-126, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-011-9116-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-011-9116-6 -
SILVA, G. C. da; MOUTINHO, L. Ações afirmativas para pessoas trans e travestis: um processo não pacificado. Revista Fórum Identidades, Itabaiana, v. 40, n. 1, p. 45-58, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47250/forident.v40n1.p45-58
» https://doi.org/10.47250/forident.v40n1.p45-58 -
SILVEIRA, M. C. T. F.; OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR, F. A. de O.; LUZ, L. C. X. Vivências de jovens transmasculinos na Universidade Federal do Piauí. CSOnline - Revista Eletrônica de Ciências Sociais, Juiz de Fora, n. 35, p. 211-230, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34019/1981-2140.2022.37160
» https://doi.org/10.34019/1981-2140.2022.37160 -
SORIA, K. M. Campus climate at research universities: 2012-2017. In: SORIA, K. M. (ed.). Evaluating campus climate at US research universities: opportunities for diversity and inclusion. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. p. 1-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94836-2_1
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94836-2_1 -
TAMTIK, M.; GUENTER, M. Policy analysis of equity, diversity and inclusion strategies in Canadian universities: how far have we come? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Ottawa, v. 49, n. 3, p. 41-56, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v49i3.188529
» https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v49i3.188529 -
TASSIGNY, M.; LUZ, L. M. E. D. Possibilidades de (in)constitucionalidade da implementação de cotas para transgêneros no ensino superior brasileiro: o caso da Universidade Estadual da Bahia. Revista Direitos Sociais e Políticas Públicas (UNIFAFIBE), Bebedouro, v. 7, n. 3, p. 225-252, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25245/rdspp.v7i3.506 Available at: https://ojs.unifafibe.com.br/revista/index.php/direitos-sociais-politicaspub/article/view/506 Accessed on: 17 jul. 2026.
» https://doi.org/10.25245/rdspp.v7i3.506» https://ojs.unifafibe.com.br/revista/index.php/direitos-sociais-politicaspub/article/view/506 -
TAYLOR, J. L.; DOCKENDORFF, K. J.; INSELMAN, K. Decoding the digital campus climate for prospective LGBTQ+ community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Philadelphia, v. 42, n. 3, p. 155-170, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1281177
» https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1281177 -
TILLAPAUGH, D.; CATALANO, D. C. J. Structural challenges affecting the experiences of public university LGBT services graduate assistants. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, Washington, v. 12, n. 2, p. 126-135, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000079
» https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000079 -
WOLFF, J. R. et al Protecting sexual and gender minorities in academic institutions with disallowing policies: psychological, ethical, and accreditation concerns. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, Washington, v. 14, n. 3, p. 249-256, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000272
» https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000272 -
WOODFORD, M. R. et al. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ally training programs on campus: current variations and future directions. Journal of College Student Development, Baltimore, v. 55, n. 3, p. 317-322, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0022
» https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0022 -
ZEMSKY, B.; SANLO, R. L. Do policies matter? New Directions for Student Services, San Francisco, n. 111, p. 7-15, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.169
» https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.169
Source: prepared by the authors (2026).
Source: Prepared by the authors (2026).