This week, we’d like to revisit our conversation on weight bias and reflect on how we may have unintentionallyreinforced weight bias by discussing the limited seat choices for fat students and colleagues on our campus. We purposefully use the word “fat” with a neutral, non-pejorative meaning to describe the human body, respecting the recommendation of the fat activists movement.1,2 Weight bias is a negative/stereotypical attitude, belief, and judgment about people because of their weight. While weight bias exists on a spectrum that can include people who are underweight, we are covering biases against plus-sized/fat people because this group predominantly experiences negative attitudes and discriminatory practices at colleges and universities. Studies found that fat students are less likely to be admitted to graduate programs3 and that fat employees are more likely to experience discrimination with their salaries and hiring.4, 5 In this Ally Tips, we grapple with the potential roles that the physical structure of college classrooms and meeting spacesmay play in creating and/or perpetuating weight bias. This Ally Tips will also highlight ways to advocate for fat students and colleagues.
Weight and T-zone bias, a bias based on where students sit in the classroom
Colleges often offer very limited seating options that are appropriate for fat individuals—they are often relegated to seats at the very back or sides of a lecture room or in peripheral areas of meeting rooms. The relegation to specific seats generates unjust and systematic bias against fat individuals. For instance, action-zone theory delineates that “where a student sits in the classroom determines how much interaction the students will have with the teacher.”6 After observing 32 mathematics and social studies classrooms, Adams and Biddle (1970) found that students sitting in the front row and center seats of other rows, which they call the T-shaped area, receive more interactions with teachers because they are in the immediate view of teachers. In another study by Tobin and Callagher (1987), some science class teachers realized that they gave more attention to the students sitting in the central area and failed to call on and have eye contact with students sitting at the periphery of their vision. Moreover, students seated in the T-zone received higher grades and liked the instructors more than those sitting non-centrally. More importantly, students experience the positive effects of sitting in the T-zone equally regardless of their predisposition to the classes and instructors being observed.7 This is because the instructors select students in the T-zone—knowingly and unknowingly—for more engagement.
Of course, there can be classrooms that do not precisely show a strong presence of T-zone impact where the seat selection of students may not matter much. However, we have to still be mindful of T-zone implicationsin regard to the potential bias we have, such as “students sitting in the front or center seats are self-motivated” and “smart kids sit front rows” and reflect on whether this bias affects the way that we offer attention to students and audience.
How colleges contribute to the weight bias
Let’s explore further how this T-zone bias is relevant to weight bias, and how seating options on campus may reinforce weight bias. Look at the picture of a lecture room on campus below. Many introductory courses and larger-scale workshops are carried out in lecture rooms with tablet desk chairs. The seats are tightly connected, and the seat space becomes even tighter when side tables are unfolded. As a result, plus-sized students, even though they are self-motivated students, have difficulty sitting in the T-zone, and are left with only seats at the back or sides of the room. Thus, it would be unjust to view students who sit outside the T-zone area as less-motivated and less-engaged learners when the plus-size students are not making seating choices based on their level of motivation but instead based on biased infrastructural characteristics of the classroom.
Many fat studentsalso dread the possibility of there being no seats available in a classroom or meeting room that will fit them, either because there are none or because the few available have already been taken. This can cause considerable anxiety for some students.8 Corey Stevens conducted a study exploring the discrimination and stigma around fat bodies, stating that “[e]ven the size and shape of classroom space can have a discriminatory impact on fat students. Difficulty fitting into classroom chairs and desks causes physical and emotional discomfort, reinforcing a ‘hidden curriculum’ about the proper size and shape of student bodies.”9 More importantly, the perception of proper body size on campus makes the fat students and employees hyper(in)visible: their bodies are noticed but their struggles are overlooked. As their struggles around lack of seat choices with comfort are not talked about, they are prone to be misunderstood as less motivated. In short, the physical space provided by colleges and universities reinforces the negative body images and weight bias around fat individuals.
Action Tips for Allies
Investigate the physical space: Anti-fat bias scholars address that fat students undergo struggles ranging from emotional discomfort and stigma, physical pain [while sitting at a non-adjustable desk], and a sense of violence when learning in classrooms.10 #FatOnCampus research project found that “fat students overwhelmingly focus on the ways they do not fit in furniture, chairs, and generally within classroom spaces.” However, investigations on physical spaces are often omitted in higher education. One step that allies and advocates can take is to investigate if the spaces you use often have options for desks that various body sizes can fit in and multiple options for seating areas for them, not just far-back and peripheral areas in spaces. If these options are unavailable, bring this issue to your unit to collectively work to improve the condition of physical space for fat students and individuals.
Institutionalizing anti-fat discrimination: In May 2023, New York City approved a bill that adds a person’s weight to the list of characteristics that are protected from discrimination, along with gender, race, age, religion, and sexual orientation. While institutions can work towards anti-weight discrimination policy, at a personal level, faculty can include a Students of Size policies in the class. This article shares the example of how Dr. TJ Stewart at Iowa State University crafted this policy and had it in his course syllabi.
Learn about intersectionality that includes weight: Dr. Bobbi Reidinger at Kent State University delineated her vivid experiences as a fat woman in academia through actual examples. She was asked to be absent from the lab where her collaborative study experiment was conducted because the other researchers feared her fatness could yield questions from the participants about the professionalism of the research team. As she shares multiple examples where her professionalism was questioned based on her weight, she explains it became important for her to teach about intersectionality, including race, class, gender, and weight.
Weekly Resources
Article: On Being the ‘Fat Person’: Possibilities and Pitfalls for Fat Activist Engagement in Academic Institutions – Calla Evans and May Friedman, fat studies scholars and activists, offer a framework to understand the experiences of fat persons in academic institutions.
Article: 10 Vital Ways to Support Fat Students on Campus– This article introduces some of the feasible and crucial actions allies and advocates can take.
Video:Let's talk about fat bias and thin privilege – Madison A. Krall discusses the unconscious bias against weight and how thin privileges exacerbate fat oppression.