GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER STUDENTS: WANTS AND
NEEDS CONCERNING GENDER-NEUTRAL HOUSING
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Higher Education Leadership)
by
James Elliott Campbell
SUMMER
2012
© 2012
James Elliott Campbell
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER STUDENTS: WANTS AND
NEEDS CONCERNING GENDER-NEUTRAL HOUSING
A Thesis
by
James Elliott Campbell
Approved by:
_________________________________, Committee Chair
Rosemary Blanchard, J.D., Ph.D.
_________________________________, Second Reader
José Chávez, Ed.D.
Date:_____________________________
iii
Student: James Elliott Campbell
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
_____________________, Graduate Coordinator _________________________
Geni Cowan, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
iv
Abstract
of
GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER STUDENTS: WANTS AND
NEEDS CONCERNING GENDER-NEUTRAL HOUSING
by
James Elliott Campbell
Brief Literature Review
Due to the limited amount of research on gender-neutral housing, the researcher
expanded the literature review to related areas of research. These areas of research
included the evolving community attitudes toward LGBT people in the United States,
lingering problems of non-acceptance, bullying and harassment, and on-campus housing
at institutions of higher education.
Statement of the Problem
The sexual and gender identity possibilities for students of colleges and
universities is outpacing the services needed to accommodate them as safely as possible.
Current difficulties arise in housing, as the assignment of roommates has always been
under the assumption that all students are heterosexual and so are roomed by their gender
and sex. The goal of this study is to determine whether the current gender/sex room
restrictions for on-campus housing needs to be changed based on the wants and needs of
current residents at a Central California State University, in light of the growing
population of non-heterosexual and non-duality based gender/sex future residents.
v
Methodology
The collection of data was conducted in two ways. A quantitative survey of
professional staff at universities with gender-neutral housing policies was used to
determine different forms of gender-neutral housing, purposes and benefits of having
such a program, and difficulties implementing gender-neutral housing. A focus group of
undergraduate students at Central California State University through the PRIDE office
was conducted, gathering their experiences living on-campus in relation to gender and
sexual identities and their opinions on the viability of gender-neutral housing.
Conclusions and Recommendations
While gender-neutral housing has the potential to be a successful program for
students, particularly LGBT, its implementation on its own is not a solution. It needs to
be part of a greater comprehensive change of identity for a university or college, to
dedicate itself to a more inclusive and understanding community environment for
students to feel safe to grow, develop, or confirm any combination of gender and sexual
identities that is correct for them.
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Rosemary Blanchard, J.D., Ph.D.
___________________
Date
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Background ............................................................................................................. 1
Statement of Problem .............................................................................................. 2
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 3
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 5
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 5
Organization of the Remainder of the Study .......................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..................................................................... 7
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7
Evolving Community Attitudes Towards LGBT People in the United States ........ 8
In the United States Military. .......................................................................... 11
In United States High Schools and Higher Education Institutions ................. 14
Lingering Problems of Non-Acceptance, Bullying, and Harassment ................... 18
On High School Campuses ............................................................................. 18
On Higher Education Campuses ..................................................................... 20
LGBT Services on Higher Education Campuses ............................................ 24
On-campus Housing at Institutions of Higher Education ..................................... 26
Identity Growth Through Diversity in Housing .............................................. 27
In Loco Parentis – Decline and Return ........................................................... 29
On-Campus Safety .......................................................................................... 31
The Nascent Move Towards Gender-Neutral Options in Student Housing .......... 33
Benefits of Gender-Neutral Housing for LGBT Residents ............................. 35
Concerns About Gender-Neutral Housing ...................................................... 37
Rationale for the Study ......................................................................................... 39
Summary ................................................................................................................39
vii
3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 41
Setting of the Study ............................................................................................... 41
Population and Sample ......................................................................................... 42
Design of the Study ............................................................................................... 43
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 44
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 45
Student Focus Group ....................................................................................... 45
Gender-Neutral Housing Survey..................................................................... 46
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 46
Data Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................... 47
4. DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 48
Organization .......................................................................................................... 48
Data Analysis and Interpretation ........................................................................... 48
Research Question #1 ..................................................................................... 48
Analysis of University Data ...................................................................... 48
Research Question #2 ..................................................................................... 50
Analysis of University Data ...................................................................... 50
Analysis of Focus Group Data .................................................................. 51
Research Question #3 ..................................................................................... 53
Analysis of Focus Group Data .................................................................. 53
Findings and Interpretations ................................................................................. 55
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 60
Summary ............................................................................................................... 60
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 60
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 62
Appendix A: Questions for Focus Group on Experiences on Campus: ........................... 63
Appendix B: Survey for Professional Staff....................................................................... 64
References ......................................................................................................................... 66
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Based off of direct research and anecdotal observation, students that identify them
selves as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT) are enrolling in higher and
higher numbers in higher education (Beemyn, 2003). One difficulty that is being
encountered, however, is how to place students that do not fit into the binary assumption
of sex/gender and sexual orientation on which most housing models are based. Some
universities have experimented with theme housing for LGBT students to provide a
welcome housing environment, allowing for an inclusive environment for those who
desire it, but still limiting room assignments based on biological sex or gender. A few
institutions through have added the option of fully integrated housing, regardless of a
student's biological sex or gender. The hope is that this housing model would help to
reduce heterosexism and heteronormativity in university housing, creating a truly
inclusive environment (Bleiberg, 2004).
The creation of gender-neutral housing at existing universities was mostly student
driven, with housing staff responding to the demand. This has mirrored the change in the
1960's-70's of university housing from gender-specific to coed, which was also student
driven. Ironically, gender-neutral housing has encountered some of the same detraction
that were raised against coed housing, notably that it would increase the amount of sexual
intercourse occurring in housing. Of more consequence though are the similarities in
2
which the shifts in housing policies happened with little or no research into the possible
effects and consequences (Willoughby, et al., 2009).
Statement of the Problem
The demographics of the students that attend college have become increasingly
diverse, with universities having to adapt and change certain practices to maintain a
welcoming environment. This has become especially true in the aspects of students' sex,
gender, and sexual orientation. Current difficulties arise in housing, as the assignment of
roommates has always been under the assumption that all students are heterosexual and
so are roomed by their gender and sex. With more and more students enrolling who are
not heterosexual and/or do not fall into the assumed sex and gender identity, the current
model for housing needs to be reexamined to see what changes if any, need to occur. The
goal of this study is to determine whether the current gender/sex room restrictions for oncampus housing needs to be changed based on the wants and needs of current residents at
a Central California State University, in light of the growing population of nonheterosexual and non-duality based gender/sex future residents.
To this point, certain questions need to be answered that can give a fuller view of
the problem.
1. What are some of the ways in which colleges and universities which offer
on-campus student housing accommodate students with various sexual and
gender orientations in their housing policies through policies which include
gender-neutral options?
3
2. What are the positive and negative aspects of housing that would inform
students on making a choice to live in gender-neutral housing?
3. What are student attitudes about including in the residential program the
option for students to choose roommates without reference to sex/gender?
Definition of Terms
Gender Identity
Defined as the psychological perception of an individual's gender, which can be
different from their Sexual Identity. Due to gender also being a largely social construct,
the definitions of what characteristics define different genders can vary widely between
different individuals. Persons can identify male, female, a combination of the two, or a
rejection of any.
Gender-neutral Housing
A policy or program for on-campus student housing, where the selection of
roommates is not limited by a student’s gender or biological sex. Different universities
and colleges have different variations, but the most common elements are that it is an
optional program for non-freshmen students where they have specific roommates that
they request to live with.
Heterosexism
Defined as “the individual person, group, or institutional norms and behaviors that
result from the assumption that all people are heterosexual. This system of oppression,
which assumes that that heterosexuality is inherently normal and superior, negates LGBT
4
people's lives and relationships” (NYU, 2012, Heterosexism, para. 1). Also used
interchangeably with heteronormativity.
Homonegativity
Similar to homophobia, but instead of being a fear of homosexuality, is the
negative belief and attitude towards homosexuality.
LGBT
While specifically being an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender,
it is often expanded to include Queer, Intersex, Transsexual, Questioning and other
appropriate terms. Groups and individuals use some or all of the terms, in varying orders.
For the purposes of this study, LGBT is used as an inclusive term of for anyone that selfidentifies as such.
Sex
Defined as the biological sex of a person, determined by either the sexual organs
of an individual or the chromosomal makeup or both. Through the use of hormonal
treatments and surgery, it is possible for a person to change their sexual identity. As this
process can take time, it is possible for a person to identify as both and neither sex.
Sexual Orientation
Defined as to what Sexual Identity(ies) a person is sexually attracted to, if any.
Examples include heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Also referred to as Sexual
Identity.
5
Limitations
One of the key limitations of this study, and any other involving LGBT students,
is the difficulty in gauging an accurate population number of LGBT students that attend
any university. This is primarily due to a lack of data for the university as sexual identity
is rarely a demographic that is tracked internally by a university, while gender identity is
rarely defined past the common male/female duality. This data is also difficult to collect
as LGBT students have shown a resistance to self-identify as LGBT in any official
capacity to institutions for fear of discrimination (Sanlo et al., 2002).
Previous research on gender-neutral housing was very limited. Writers that
proposed gender-neutral housing as a beneficial alternative for on-campus housing for
LGBT students extrapolated their arguments from other studies that involved LGBT
students or on-campus housing.
Significance of the Study
The demographics of college student bodies are becoming more diverse,
particularly in the areas of Gender, Sex, and Sexuality as they cannot be used
interchangeably as they used to be, becoming separate and distinct aspects of people.
When any action has been taken towards the situation, they are often of a temporary
nature or address it individually, student by student. There has been little done to
understand what their want and needs of the greater student body are for their housing.
They are the ones who actually have to live in residential settings with each other, so it
makes most logical sense that before any firm steps are taken towards making
6
adjustments, the opinions of the residents should be aired.
As such, the study is a first step towards finding a resolution towards the current
housing system. It might find that there is nothing that actually needs to be done
currently and that students are rather content with the current status quo. Even then, each
individual school should be surveying its residents, as cultural tolerance and acceptance
vary greatly throughout the higher education system.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This document contains five chapters detailing the study completed by the
researcher. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the purpose of the study in relation to
LGBT students and gender-neutral housing. The second chapter is a review of the related
literature that has been previously published on the topic. It is divided into four major
topics, the evolving community attitudes toward LGBT people in the United States,
lingering problems of non-acceptance, bullying and harassment, on-campus housing at
institutions of higher education, and the nascent move toward gender-neutral options in
student housing. Chapter 3 details the methodology used by the researcher in the study of
gender-neutral housing and LGBT students, including the surveying of universities that
currently have gender-neutral housing and LGBT students at a large public university
about their attitudes and opinions toward on-campus student housing in general and
gender-neutral housing in particular. Chapter 4 examines and analyzes the data gathered
by the researcher. Finally, the last chapter ends with conclusions and recommendations
of the researcher.
7
Chapter 2
REIVEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The views and attitudes of people in the United States have slowly shifted over
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues and people. Growth towards
acceptance and positive attitudes has occurred, but the process has been slow and often
suffering from setbacks. LGBT people, particularly young people, still suffer from
various forms of harassment and discrimination. The changes have also occurred within
the setting of higher education, which can sometimes become a refuge for LGBT people,
both as students and as staff and faculty. Universities and colleges are still sites of
harassment and discrimination however, more often in the form of homonegativity and
heteronormativity. Residence halls and other forms of on-campus housing are often
common sites for both homonegativity and heteronormativity. Housing on campus can
itself be considered to be an institution of heteronormativity, in that residents are
restricted in their choice of roommates by biological sex and gender, regardless of sexual
orientation or if a student identifies as transgender. At seeming odds with these practices,
is the reality that on-campus housing can be a place where a majority of a student's
development of self-identity takes place, when bolstered by an environment that is safe
and secure. Some universities and colleges have started to offer a gender-neutral housing
option in attempts to counter both homonegativity and heteronormativity, where students
are not limited in their choice of roommate by biological sex or gender.
8
Evolving Community Attitudes Toward LGBT People in the United States
People identifying as LGBT still face discrimination and prejudice within the
United States even though there are some legal protections in place. However, gradual
positive shifts in attitude and acceptance for LGBT people have occurred in the United
States in the past several years. While there are no clear specific reasons for the change,
there are factors that can be seen as predictors and indicators of whether a person's
attitude is positive or negative towards lesbians and gay men. The most prevalent
indicators revealed in research have been the participants' races, experiences with
homosexuals, religion or faith, political leanings, and gender role beliefs (Brown &
Henriquez, 2008). Two of the trends that were found to point toward acceptance were the
age of the person and how much personal contact that they had had with LGBT persons.
In general, younger people were more accepting of lesbians and gay men (The Pew
Research Center, 2006), although the definition of “young” varied among different
studies, including ages from 10 to 35. More importantly however, interpersonal contact
has been a better predictor of acceptance; the greater the interpersonal contact with
lesbians and gay men, the greater the level of acceptance (Brown & Henriquez, 2008).
While gender has also been a factor in predicting acceptance, with females being more
likely than males to show acceptance (Herek 1988), beliefs about gender roles have been
a greater factor, where those that have less stringent interpretations of gender roles are
more likely to be accepting of lesbians and gay men (Parrott, Adams, & Zeichner, 2002).
The adherence to religious beliefs, particularly those that espouse anti-LGBT doctrines
9
has also seen as a likely determining factor for negative attitudes towards lesbians and
gay men (Schulte & Battle, 2004).
While there has been a general increase in acceptance and positive attitudes
towards LGBT people, researchers have found that negative attitudes towards lesbians
and gay men are still prevalent, often leading to discrimination (Herek, 2000; Brown &
Henriquez, 2008). The continuation of negative attitudes has been found by some
researchers to be caused by an inability to form compromises with “moral values,”
allowing for changes in moral belief structures. For people in this status, changing their
beliefs about the morality of homosexuality was largely rated as “difficult” or
“impossible” (Mooney & Schuldt, 2008). This inability to change is similar to the
findings that older generations hold more negative attitudes, because of a continued
association of homosexuality with perversity and mental illness, as it was previously
diagnosed medically until the 1970's (Henry & Reyna, 2007, Herek; 2004; Olson, Cadge,
& Harrison, 2006).
The portrayals of LGBT people in media and popular culture have also been
considered a factor in the shift of attitudes. While there are some misconceptions that are
still portrayed, particularly about transgender people being “trapped in the wrong body”,
(Alexander, 2005, p. 66), the characterization of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals has largely
moved from their portrayal as unstable sexual deviates to balanced, attractive, and normal
individuals. In From “Perverts” to “Fab Five”: The Media’s Changing Depiction of Gay
Men and Lesbians (2009), Rodger Streitmatter documented the appearance and depiction
of LGBT people in the media, beginning in 1950 with the media coverage of the firing of
10
ninety-one U.S. State Department employees for being homosexual. This coverage was
one of the first times that national newspapers openly discussed homosexuality, although
all discussion was negative, ranging from their security risk as government employees at
being blackmailed into spying to keep their sexual orientation secret, to their supposed
unstable personalities and confusion over their gender, but largely focusing on accusation
about uncontrollable sexual urges, often leading to molestation of youth. After this
purely negative media coverage, LGBT people and issues began to appear more in the
broader media, especially film and television. While often portraying the stereotypes of
LGBT people as reality, gradually the characters portrayed became more normal and
realistic. Beginning with The Boys in the Band, a movie showing a group of gay male
friends portraying every negative stereotype, to the character of Jodie Dallas in Soap
played purely for laughs, recently ending with sympathetic and stereotype breaking story
of Brokeback Mountain, detailing the love to two cowboys, characterization and story
slowly moved away from stereotypes and into positive portrayals. As the general
portrayal of LGBT characters became more and more positive, the portrayal and interest
by the media in issues involving LGBT communities, such as the change from AIDS
being a solely LGBT problem to a world-wide epidemic, followed suit (Streitmatter,
2009).
The view shown of LGBT people and issues by the media has also been more
focused in the 2000's on activism as the movement for equal rights for LGBT people
grew. Americans are becoming increasingly supportive of civil rights for gays and
lesbians (Brewer, 2003), with the largest struggle centered on the definition of marriage;
11
whether it should be limited to a man and woman or open to same-sex partners. This
attention may have shifted more support towards same-sex marriage (Moore & Carroll,
2004). In 1999, two-thirds of Americans were against same-sex marriage (Newport,
1999). Ten years later, an ABC News-Washington Post (Confessore & Barbaro, 2011),
poll showed that those numbers had fallen to only 51%, while 66% of people between the
ages of 18-29 were in full support for same-sex marriage. Twenty polls that were taken
between 1996 and 2009 showed overall that support for same-sex marriage or some form
of relationship recognition has grown sporadically over the past 20 years (Marzullo &
Herdt, 2011). At the same time that support is growing for same-sex marriage, those who
oppose it have become further entrenched in their beliefs, particularly older Americans
(Paulson, 2003; Marzullo & Herdt, 2011). Most states, as of today, either ban or do not
support same-sex marriage (Human Rights Campaign, 2012). While other rights are also
being fought over, such as inheritance rights and other non-medical rights, (Avery et al.,
2007) and the ability to adopt children either singly or as partners (Hershberger, 1997;
Yang, 1997), marriage rights have become the main symbolic proxy through which the
issues of sexual orientation and gender have played out (Green, 2006; Lannutti, 2007;
Pawleski et al., 2006).
In the United States Military
The presence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the United States
military bears special attention given that ever since its founding, the military has been
an exclusive institution in regards to race, gender/sex, and sexuality. Only in recent years
have the armed services started to fully desegregate, first by race, then by sex, and only
12
recently, by sexual orientation. Transgender people, however, are still disallowed from
serving. In 2011, the military dropped its prohibition on lesbians and gay men openly
serving, no longer having to hide their sexual orientation.
Expressed in the memorandum by the Secretary of Defense Leslie Aspin, Jr.
(1993), “Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue,” (DADTDP) the reasoning behind the
barring of homosexuality in the military was that “homosexuality is incompatible with
military service because it interferes with the factors critical to combat effectiveness,
including unit morale, unit cohesion and individual privacy” (p. 1). Scholars that
supported DADTDP found that it was necessary for the preservation of unit cohesion
(Moskos, 1993), yet many others argued against it, citing negative impacts not only to
LGBT service members, but to non-LGBT service members as well (Belkin, 2001;
Terman, 2004).
One of the difficulties encountered in studying the effects of DADTDP was that it
prevented LGBT service members from being able to speak openly, leaving them
vulnerable to the risk of their sexual orientation being revealed and their being
discharged. Unless other members of a unit were aware that one of their fellow service
members was LGBT, the LGBT personnel were the only ones who could have actual
knowledge about the unit cohesion within their unit. Any data on the subject that was
collected usually came from LGBT ex-service members (Moradi, 2009). Those
interviewed described behaviors that conformed to the same concealment and disclosure
practices that are used by LGBT people in workplace settings, where they were forced
into concealment to protect their position in the military and their personal welfare. The
13
forced concealment of their sexual orientation negatively impacted the service members,
preventing trust and unit cohesion, similar to problems that have been discovered in other
workplace settings (Moradi, 2009). These practices of concealment and disclosure are
strategies used by LGBT individuals in which they will either conceal or disclose
whether they are LGBT, based on the social environment that they are existing in, often
using both within the same general environment, but varying the strategy with different
people. Those that feel forced to exercise greater concealment and less disclosure are
often found to be suffering from higher levels of stress and social isolation, which can
reduce commitment and performance (Herek, 1996). These effects found in normal
workplace environments were exacerbated in the military setting, where disclosure was
almost impossible. The social isolation experienced by lesbian and gay male service
members in their exclusive environment would only have deleterious effects on their
personal morale and negatively affected the unit cohesion that had been described as of
paramount importance by the Secretary of Defense (Griffith, 2002; Button, 2001;
Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Veteran
lesbian and gay male service members who were able to disclose their sexual orientation
related it in positive terms to their view of their unit's cohesion (Moradi, 2009).
Lesbian and gay male ex-service members however, reported that the sexual
orientation harassment that they had experienced, both to themselves and to others, was a
larger factor in their negative views of their units' cohesion. This was influenced by the
perceived inability to actively confront the harassment, in fear of inadvertently disclosing
their sexual orientation and risking discharge. In general the limited sexual orientation
14
disclosure, combined with having to actively conceal sexual orientation, and the exposure
to sexual orientation-based harassment was each linked to lower military unit cohesion
(Moradi, 2009). If the research on the military experience has anything to offer college
administrators in planning campus residential options it surely would be that policies that
discourage openness about sexual orientation create environments in which harassment is
more likely and in which the development of cohesion within the group is impaired.
In United States High Schools and Higher Education Institutions
The foundational text that created the predominant expectation for how educators
and scholars should treat homosexuality, including homosexuality of either students or
teachers, was Willard Waller's The Sociology of Teaching, written in 1932. The book,
now generally recognized to have been methodologically lacking, reinforced existing
stereotypes by describing homosexuality as not only deviant and dangerous, but as a
contagious disease (Renn, 2010). Those found to have this “disease” were removed from
the academic environment to which they belonged. The beginnings of a change to this
attitude in the college setting occurred when students identified as homosexual, instead of
just being removed from the school, were convinced to participate in psychological
studies in attempts to “cure” their homosexuality. Instead of finding any cure, the studies
eventually concluded that there was nothing wrong medically or psychologically with the
homosexual students (Renn, 2010), eventually leading to homosexuality being removed
in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (1973).
While homosexuality was no longer officially considered to be a disease or
15
deviant behavior, schools were still influenced by the values, stereotypes and beliefs of
their surrounding communities. Schools and colleges have slowly accepted LGBT
students, staff and faculty on the whole, but still with lingering problems around degrees
of heteronormativity and homonegativity. States have passed laws to protect students
from bullying and harassment, but these laws vary from state to state, and often do not
always include language specific to gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation. States and
school districts that have laws and policies against bullying and harassment in school
based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity include California (1999/2004),
Illinois (2007), Iowa (2007), Maine (2005), Maryland (2008), Minnesota (1993), New
Jersey (2002), Oregon (2007), Vermont (1993/2007), and Washington DC (1977/2006).
States that outlaw bullying and harassment in schools based on sexual orientation but not
gender identity include Connecticut (1997), Massachusetts (1993), Washington (2002),
and Wisconsin (2005). Those states with anti-bullying and harassment without listing
sexual orientation or gender identity as protected categories include Alaska (2006),
Arizona (2005), Arkansas (2003), Colorado (2000), Connecticut (2002), Delaware
(2007), Florida (2008), Georgia (2000), Idaho (2006), Illinois (1995), Indiana (2005),
Kentucky (2008), Louisiana (2001), Minnesota (2005), Missouri (2006), New Hampshire
(2000), Ohio (2006), Oklahoma (2002), Oregon (2001), Rhode Island (2003), South
Carolina (2006), Tennessee (2005), Texas (2005), and West Virginia (2001) (Blumenfeld
& Cooper, 2010).
Even with the legal protections, LGBT youth in K-12 schools have continued to
experience daily harassment and bullying from their peers; however there has begun to be
16
some movement towards what has been described as the “new gay teenager.” These
LGBT youth are seen as experiencing better relationships with their peers in school,
familial acceptance (particularly with parents), and an increasing range of LGBT role
models in society and media, and at home (Marzullo & Herdt, 2011; Floyd & Bakeman,
2006; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009; Savin-Williams, 2001). Technology, in
particular, has aided many LGBT youth in connecting with other LGBT youth or allies,
especially those in areas that have small to nonexistent LGBT communities (Blumenfeld
& Cooper, 2010).
College and university administrations have been found to be passive to LGBT
issues, but not outright hostile (Ressler & Zosky, 2008). A number of issues which affect
the quality of life of the LGBT community are essentially ignored in planning and
operation of college campuses. These issues include safety on campus, censorship in
classrooms (both self-censorship and external), verbal harassment, and selective
bathroom use, particularly for transgender students (Rankin, 2003). These omissions
create environments which, while not overtly anti-LGBT, can cause LGBT students to
become much more selective with whom and where they socialize, work, and study.
LGBT students do feel that they are more likely to find allies on campus than open
hostility, but in contrast they often find the surrounding community to be less friendly
and open (Ressler & Zosky, 2008).
Life in college, however, can lead to transitions and encounters with varieties of
lifestyles and ways of thinking that may serve to re-socialize students away from the
hometown attitudes and parental influences with which they arrived, sometimes
17
prompting them to become actively engaged in promoting social change (Renn, 2007).
Studies have found that there is a significant relationship between time spent in college
and attitudes towards LGBT students. Upper level students are more likely to show
support for LGBT students and issues rather than first or second year students (SchottCeccacci, Holland, & Matthews, 2009). Often this increase with age of support for
LGBT students mirrored an increase in interpersonal contact with LGBT students and
community (Eldridge, Mack, & Swank, 2006; Schott-Ceccacci, et al., 2009; Hinrichs &
Rosenberg, 2002).
Institutions that have become more active in their support for their LGBT students
have taken a number of measures and changes to reduce the heteronormativity and
homonegativity on campus. The creation of LGBT resource centers and study programs
on LGBT issues have been the biggest changes, with funding reallocated to these
projects, as well as staff and faculty. However, change is still slow, with only 100 of the
almost 5,500 colleges and universities in the United States having LGBT resource centers
by 2003 (Rankin, 2003). Safe Zone programs have also begun to flourish on college and
university campuses, where different parts of campus are designated as Safe Zones
promoting diversity, acceptance, and safety, particularly for LGBT students, staff, and
faculty. These spaces are visibly advertised, not only calling attention to the location for
students that need the space, but also serving to engage the thought process for students
that would not normally think about LGBT issues. Gay-friendly sororities or fraternities
are also rare, particularly as sororities and fraternities have typically been identified by
18
LGBT students as places that can be especially unwelcoming to LGBT students (Ressler
& Zosky, 2008).
Lingering Problems of Non-Acceptance, Bullying and Harassment
While it is sometimes difficult to perceive changing attitudes towards LGBT
people, it is easier to identify specific ways and cases where discrimination or
homophobia continues. As of 2008, gays and lesbians were not protected at the federal
level from hate crimes or workplace discrimination. The federal government also does
not recognize marriage between lesbians or gay men (Brown & Henriquez, 2008). As of
2012, all but 9 states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming) have statutes or constitutional amendments that
prohibit same-sex marriage. Lesbians and gay men are also prohibited from adopting
children in 5 states (Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah) and are
excluded from domestic violence laws in 6 states (Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, New
York, South Carolina, and Virginia) (Human Rights Campaign, 2012). Transgender
people often face significant harassment and violence in gender-segregated areas, such as
public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms (Alexander, 2005).
On High School Campuses
The prevalence and nature of the harassment and bullying that LGBT youth
encountered in school, was such that some described in studies as part of their “normal
routine,” something dealt with daily and expected (Heffner, 2010, p. #). In another study,
over 85% claimed that they were harassed due to their sexual orientation or gender
19
identity. Twenty percent (20%) reported actually being physically attacked in school,
with little response from teachers or administrators (Biegel & Kuehl, 2010). Researchers
have found that the homophobic bullying often perpetuates itself, as in cases where,
attempting to counter the homophobic bullying against themselves, children would harass
others to prove their heterosexuality. This bullying would also manifest itself as sexual
harassment in the students’ attempts to prove not only their heterosexuality, but often
their masculinity or femininity (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012). Both sexual
orientation and identification with perceived gender roles were found to play large parts
in the basis for homophobic bullying. Male students that experienced homophobic
bullying often identified male teens in traditional gender roles, such as “jocks,” as the
most likely to bully them as to their perceived sexual orientation and masculinity. In
contrast, the same students felt that on the whole, their female peers were more likely to
be accepting of peers of differing sexuality or gender norms (Heffner, 2010).
Students were found to be reluctant however to report homophobic bullying, as it
could be viewed as a sign of revealing that they identify as LGBT, whether or not the
student was. This fear was not only applied to interpretations by peers, but also by
parents and guardians. Many feared possible repercussions from parents, including
physical violence or being forced to leave their home (Blumenfeld & Coooper, 2010). In
addition to comprising almost 40% of the teen runaway populations in parts of the United
States, LGBT youth have been found to have suicide rates at least three times higher than
other youth. The discrepancy in the suicide rate between LGBT youth and their nonLGBT peers is considered in large part due to homophobic bullying (Biegel & Kuehl,
20
2010). When interviewed, some LGBT youth have themselves stated that they would
have much higher self-esteem if they had never encountered homophobia (Heffner,
2010).
Research into both school policies and legal documents from court proceedings
have found that many schools have failed to provide effective deterrence to sexual
harassment and homophobic bullying of their students, and, in general, have also failed to
address the needs and issues that affected their LGBT student populations (Biegel &
Kuehl, 2010). Staff and faculty have often been found to be insensitive to the differing
experiences of the LGBT youth at the schools. As a result, the difficulties and problems
experienced by the LGBT youth have often been treated in the same way as problems
experienced by non-LGBT youth, although the total experiences of the different groups
of students may not have been comparable at all (Heffner, 2010).
On Higher Education Campuses
On university and college campuses in the United States, LGBT students have
continued to experience harassment, but often with less frequency then they did in high
school. Nonetheless, students participating in studies of college life have still reported
experiencing enough harassment that they feared for their safety while on campus
(Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). Within multiple studies, about a third of
the LGBT students participating have reported personally being harassed due to their
sexual orientation or gender identity at least once in the past year from when they were
surveyed (Angeli, 2009; Rankin, 2003). In studies that differentiated between LGB and
transgender students, it was found that transgender students experienced even more
21
harassment (Rankin 2005). Between twenty to fifty percent of the LGBT students,
depending on the study, reported that they feared for their physical safety on campus,
again with higher percentages specifically for transgender students. Nearly half of the
students described their campus as homophobic and prejudiced against LGBT students
(Hill et. al. 2002; Rankin 2003, 2005). These experiences severely affected the LGBT
students, causing chronic absenteeism, eating disorders, depression and anxiety. In
addition, the suicide rate of LGBT students has been documented as three times higher
than that of their non-LGBT peers (Crocco, 2001)
Over time, the visibility of homophobia has decreased since the time of those
studies, due to homophobic behavior increasingly being seen as socially taboo and also
because of genuine acceptance of LGBT individuals by the larger communities.
Nonetheless, heteronormativity and homonegativity both have continued to affect LGBT
students’ campus experiences (Burn, Kadlec, & Rexer, 2005; Steffens, 2005). The
continuance of heteronormativity and homonegativity is reflected in the oblivious
attitudes of those who perpetuate it. This obliviousness stems from a lack of knowledge
and understanding of the issues and experiences of LGBT students by non-LGBT
students, staff, and faculty (Iconis, 2010). In areas where heteronormativity is not viewed
as a threat, people who do not identify as heterosexual or within a gender duality,
generally have their experiences excluded from classroom discourse. Advocates have
called for amended social curricula to educate about LGBT issues and work against
heterosexist attitudes on campus (Crocco, 2001; Dankmeijer, 2008). Dankmeijer (2008)
further stressed that a greater understanding of transgender issues was needed, as too
22
often transgender was seen as a single identity rather than a broad spectrum of identities,
including sexual identity. Without being held in check by education and understanding of
LGBT students, some scholars have pointed that homophobia could return to its previous
levels of outward expression and acceptance (Renn, 2010).
On campuses, LGBT students have reported heteronormativity and
homonegativity predominately taking place both in classrooms and in on-campus housing
facilities, mainly by other students, but also by staff and faculty. In classrooms, LGBT
students reported mostly heteronormative behavior from their faculty, both in their
interactions with students and with the curriculum provided. Students were discouraged
from writing about “sensitive” subjects such as gender and sexuality. Subject areas that
could have had connections to LGBT issues or experiences were, at the most, considered
to be a footnote to the lesson or completely absent. When they were mentioned, faculty
was perceived by students as being uncomfortable about the topic. Negative behavior
and comments pertaining to LGBT issues and experiences from other students were often
ignored or halfheartedly addressed by faculty. The professors' lack of action was
interpreted by the students interviewed to stem from their being embarrassed to speak out
against homonegative comments and being unwilling to become involved (Ressler &
Zosky, 2008; Robison, 2012). Crocco (2001) argued that this behavior of both faculty
and students fed a heteronormative “hidden curriculum” (p. 67) that perpetrated
homophobic norms and contributed to the feelings of LGBT students that campuses were
unsafe. LGBT students become wary of such staff and faculty, as their silence appears to
be tacitly supporting homophobia, which contributes to them being seen as someone that
23
cannot be confided in for support, even in matters unrelated to LGBT issues (Asher,
2007).
LGBT students living in campus housing facilities experienced heteronormativity
and homonegativity more often, and in some cases worse, than in their classrooms.
Researchers directly tied the levels of homonegativity to the resident’s perception of a
negative climate in their residence hall. This was true not just for LGBT residents, but
was also the perception of non-LGBT residents, although not as strongly felt (Fanucce &
Taub, 2010). LGBT residents cited the lack of sensitivity for diversity by staff members.
Examples included a lack of gender neutral language and being forced to move out of a
room if a roommate was uncomfortable with them. The perceived environment for
LGBT residents was that by being LGBT, any problems and negativity that arose from
other residents was in some way their fault, that by being there, “it was their problem,”
not that of the other residents (Ressler & Zosky, 2008). LGBT residents commented that
they also felt the need to feel safe in their homes like other residents, but somehow the
safety of other residents came first, leading some LGBT residents to conclude that the
housing was not safe for them (Ressler & Zosky, 2008).
Another area of housing pointed out as a problem by transgender students was
expanded to other areas of campus. Public restrooms and areas such as locker rooms
were very limited in their accommodations for transgender students. Most facilities were
segregated by gender, even single-stall bathrooms. Changing areas and showers in locker
rooms afforded little or no privacy. Transgender students felt forced to choose between
24
the two gender choices and often ended choosing neither, feeling that there was no place
for them on campus (Alexander, 2009; Angeli, 2009).
LGBT students in general felt that the campus was unwelcoming to them as there
was little visible presence of LGBT people, groups, and programs. Not only did LGBT
students suffer from isolation and loneliness (Robison, 2012), but the lack of visibility
helped to cultivate homonegativity and heteronormativity on campus, along with
misunderstandings of transgender students (Burgess, 2005; Rankin 2005). Part of this
lack of visibility was the absence of any inclusion of LGBT issues in general education
curriculum, as LGBT students pointed out that they felt that non-LGBT students would
never get any exposure to LGBT issues in the classroom otherwise (Ressler & Zosky,
2008).
LBGT Services on Higher Education Campuses
The heteronormativity prevalent in institutions of higher education, along with
fears of discrimination based on sexual identity, often leads LGBT students to not take
advantage of services available to them through their university or college (Sanlo,
Rankin, & Schoenbert, 2002). Staff and faculty of universities and colleges need to be
educated about sexual and gender minority groups, so that they can develop the resources
to promote their offices and services as welcoming and safe environments for LGBT
students (Pattison, 2010). Some staff have been reluctant in the past to advertise services
for LGBT students under the assumption that visible materials for LGBT students would
be unsettling to non-LGBT students, who would then choose to not take advantage of
those services. Instead, the onus is put upon LGBT students to either enter into office
25
environments that may seem unwelcoming or self-disclose in uncertain environments to
strangers in order to gain information specific to their needs as an LGBT student (Rubin,
2000). LGBT students find themselves then in a position where they must meet the same
educational goals as their non-LGBT peers, but without being able to rely on the same
types of assistance (Pattison, 2010).
One of the major difficulties in providing services to LGBT students in the present
climate is that it is difficult to ascertain the number of students that identify as LGBT in
order to know what level of services need to be provided. There are two reasons for a
lack of any data on the subject; the first is that campuses rarely inquire as to a student’s
sexual identity and gender identity, beyond the male/female duality. Even if campuses
did make the inquiry, LGBT students might be reticent to disclose their sexual or gender
identity, often out of fear of discrimination from the institution that would now have this
information. Indeed, it is to avoid just such an outcome that inquiry initiated by the
institution as to sexual orientation or gender identity might be held to be discriminatory.
In addition, because of the nature of data collection, surveys about sexual identity issues
are more likely to be exclusive in their terminology then inclusive. Students that felt
unable to self-identify on the form would not fill it out. The difficulty in accurately
documenting the presence of LGBT students on campus causes universities and colleges
to be unable to accurately assess whether their LGBT student population is receiving the
level of services that they need (Sanlo, Rankin & Schoenberg, 2002).
26
On-Campus Housing at Institutions of Higher Education
Students who live on campus at a university or college are able to move into
housing programs which move beyond just providing a space for sleeping and storing
belongings. While the original purpose for housing was merely to provide a living space
for the students that attended the school, most residence programs focus now on
expanding the developmental opportunities for their residents. Learning environments
are not limited to only the classroom, and so housing staff promote activities, both
official and unofficial, to encourage growth in areas that include educational, intellectual,
cultural, social, and emotional (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Research has found that
students living on-campus experience multiple strong positive influences and outcomes,
particularly greater involvement and investment in the college and higher levels of
persistence towards graduation. Personal growth and development are also affected, but
not always as consistently or clearly. Much of the growth that can be documented is
attributed to the interpersonal interactions that occur within residence halls and other oncampus housing between students. Interactions with students of differing backgrounds
have been found to be especially important in broadening student’s understandings of
social diversity. Beyond just an increase in social skills, students have also shown
cognitive and intellectual growth, greater concept of self, and inner direction and
autonomy (Pascarella, Terenzini & Blimling, 1994; Flowers, 2004). Moreover, these
benefits and outcomes have been attributed to the level of actual engagement that the
students are experiencing with faculty and other students compared to students that do
not live on campus. Chickering (1974) summed up these interactions and effects in his
27
comparison between the two,
Residents engage more fully with the academic program and associated
intellectual activities. They have more frequency and wider ranging contact with
faculty members and fellow students. They more frequently participate in
extracurricular activity and assume positions of leadership. They more frequently
attend cultural events and discuss political, religious, and social issues. (p. 53)
Identity Growth Through Diversity in Housing
Part of the development that students can go through in their personal identity is
related to their experiences with the relationships and interactions with other students.
On-campus housing proves to be a key location for these students, due to the
concentrated nature of the both the quantity of students near each other and the time spent
together (Enochs & Roland, 2006). Development however is dependent on a host of
factors including the depth of interpersonal relationships, the diversity of both
backgrounds and attitudes of other students, and actualized opportunities for interchange
of ideas and interests. The culture that each individual student community forms can
affect students’ development, encouraging growth and exploration or inhibiting it. The
development of identity for students is strengthened through encounters with people from
differing backgrounds, where their reactions can reinforce, discourage, or modify
behavior. When the community only accepts a limited set of roles, though, identity
development suffers, especially when coupled with little personal reflection or
unquestioned commitment to preset identities. Relationships that are valued and
cultivated, where the interactions between the students are genuine, ease identity
28
development. Thus, a community culture that specifically inhibits cross-cultural
connections between students reinforces stereotypes and discriminatory behavior
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
On-campus housing environments have an important impact upon the community
cultures that develop within them. Even students recognize this importance. For
example, in a study by David Cheng (2004), residential experience was ranked as having
a higher impact on community then either socializing or friendship. For one thing,
housing staff attempt to help create the situations where social connections like
friendships could develop among students in campus housing. More importantly,
students recognized that they benefited from being able to live with other people who are
often very different from each other (Fogg, 2008). The communities created in student
housing however start off as artificial, students assigned to rooms and buildings by
administrators. There is an attempt to match roommates with the limited information
available about them with compatibility in mind, but this is tempered by an effort for a
diversity of students within the building. The diversity of the building however should
not come at the expense of space, crowding in as many as possible. The student
communities should be small enough that the students have the ability to reasonably
know their entire community, increasing the likelihood of having meaningful interactions
with each other (Chickering, 1974; Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Even though meaningful interactions between residents in a community is
encouraged and highly desired, it still needs to be balanced with a students need for
privacy and control of their environment. Students feeling forced into more interaction
29
then they can handle, will isolate themselves away from the community, either in their
rooms or away from housing area entirely. Failing to balance the privacy needs of
students, while encouraging interaction, can lead to increased levels of stress for students.
The issue of privacy is part of the greater issue of control a student has over their
environment, which is integral to their ability to not only develop their identity, but to
express it safely and comfortably (Schroeder, 1981).
In Loco Parentis – Decline and Return
Chickering and Reisser (1993), however, warned that the possible growth for
students can be stifled due to overly protective housing administrations, heavily operated
in the concept of in loco parentis. In loco parentis, translated from Latin as “in place of
the parent,” allowed schools, colleges, and universities to exert control over their student
populations, not just in the realm of academics, but in all aspects of their lives.
Institutions of higher education held themselves responsible not only for a student's
academic learning, but also providing for a moral and spiritual upbringing. In this way,
staff and faculty acted as disciplinarians for students, even those no longer legally minors.
Students unwilling to conform to the standards and requirements set by universities and
colleges could even find themselves expelled from the institution. For lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender students, expulsion could happen for expressing sexual or
gender identity that did not conform to the norms of the university or college (Herek,
1993).
The decline of in loco parentis would not begin until the 1960s, coming from a
combination of forces, including social and political movements, the push for increased
30
student rights, and the results of legal cases involving universities and colleges (Walters,
2010). One key event in the movement for student rights was the Free Speech Movement
protests that occurred at the University of California, Berkeley in 1964. Through protests
and a strike against the campus, students demanded the university allow for on-campus
political activities, the students' right to free speech, and greater academic freedom.
While the protests ultimately ended with the arrest of up to 800 of the protesters in order
to end the strike and return the campus to normal, their wants were eventually accepted
by the university (California Monthly, 1965). In the legal realm, numerous lawsuits were
brought against universities by their students. Some were lawsuits that sought damages
due to students being injured while involved in campus endorsed activities. Since in
virtually all cases, the injuries were caused by third parties, even if on-campus, the
universities were typically found to be not liable to having to protect their students and
act as insurers of their safety. At the same time, students suing their university after being
expelled due to non-academic reasons had rulings granted in their favor (Watson, 2010).
The resurgence of in loco parentis came in part from societal change, but
ultimately it was a change in the relationship of institutions of higher education and their
students. Increasing rates of crime on campuses, combined with a lack of response to the
crimes, led to lawsuits against the universities and colleges by students. The rulings from
these lawsuits found that institutions of higher education were responsible for the safety
of their students while on campus, no matter whether third parties were responsible, in
particular those students who were living on campus had a right to a safe living
environment. In essence, students had become dependent upon their universities or
31
colleges to ensure their safety. Those institutions of higher education, including
individual administrators, that willfully failed to prevent crime on their campuses became
liable to the victims, where before they had almost been untouchable (Watkins, 2010).
On-campus Safety
In response to the demands for increased safety of students on campus, the
Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 was passed. Later renamed as
the Clery Act, in honor of Jeanne Clery, a student raped and murdered in her dorm room,
the purpose of the legislation was to enable student to be informed of the potential
dangers on their campus and security services available to them. Importantly, the goal is
the spread of accurate information to allow for students to make their own informed
decisions (Watkins, 2010). Institutions of higher education were also required by the law
to report the data gathered on on-campus crime to the federal Department of Education.
Before the Clery Act, universities and colleges were able to stay silent upon the nature of
crime on their campuses, both to the general public and to local, state, and federal
governments. Beyond reporting to the U.S. Department of Education, institutions of
higher education are required to publish the data collected as the Annual Security Report,
making it available to students, both prospective and current, staff, and faculty each year
(Fisher, 2003; Security On Campus, Inc. 2000).
Some researchers of the impact of Clery Act compliance have found evidence that
the Annual Security Reports published to student, faculty, and staff does not give an
accurate portrayal for a campus crime rate. The report only documents crime that has
been reported to police, instead of measuring the rate of actual victimization incidents.
32
Crimes that have high incident rate but do not involve violence are not included in the
report, such as theft or larceny (Fisher et al., 2002). Research has shown that, particularly
given the young age of resident college students, those identifying with groups that have
been discriminated against are less likely to report being the victims of crime. The
reasons for their choice to not report on crimes committed against them were many, but
did include the fear of reprisal, both from the perpetrators and from others, and fear that
by acknowledging that they were a victim, they would become victimized again (Sloan et
al., 1997). These fears appeared to not be unfounded, as research indicates that almost
one-third of students will be victimized by some sort of crime on campus (Fisher et al.,
2006).
Part of the Clery Act (year) was the requirement of a separate report that dealt
specifically with residential facilities on campus, detailing the experienced rate of crime
and the safety precautions and services available. This separate reporting is specifically
aimed towards providing information for prospective and current students regarding the
safety of on campus housing. According to the research of Gregory and Janosik (2006),
from the data submitted to the federal Department of Education, much of the crime that
occurred on campus happened within the confines of residence facilities. Administrators
and staff involved in on-campus housing were then surveyed by Gregory and Jansoik
(2006) as to the effect of the Clery Act on prospective and current residents.
The results for Gregory and Jansoik (2006) showed primarily that administrators
and staff were unsure of how much attention students paid to the Annual Security Report.
Only 11% believed that students did read the report and only 10% that it had influenced
33
the decision for college attendance for prospective students. Almost three quarters of the
respondents were unable to say if their students read the report or if it had influenced the
decision of prospective students. Thirteen percent believed that the students at their
colleges or universities did not read the ASR, while 16% believed that it had no influence
on prospective students schooling choice. When asked whether the ASR had any
influence in changing students’ behaviors or perceptions of campus safety, only 15%
believed that it had influenced students’ behavior or perceptions, while 55% perceived no
change in their student population. Thirty percent were unsure if there had been any
impact. Gregory and Janosik concluded that if the residential areas of institutions of
higher education were the areas that experienced the most crime on campus, then current
and prospective students were still ill-informed as to the campus climate in regard to
crime and safety. Staff and administrators needed to increase the promotion of the ASR
to students as a tool for their safety and well-being (2006). The Clery Act (year) does not,
therefore, appear to have really addressed the safety concerns of LGBT students who
wish to reside on campus. At the same time, Clery Act concerns represent one more area
which needs to be sensitively addressed on those campuses which seek to include genderneutral housing options in their residential options for students.
The Nascent Move Toward Gender-Neutral Options in Student Housing
In order to create the safe and inclusive environment needed for successful
learning at colleges and universities, the policy of gender-neutral housing has been
proposed as being a solution. One major proponent for this policy is the National Student
34
Genderblind Campaign (NSGC), partially funded through a grant by Campus Pride
(citation). From its website, “We envision a fully inclusive and free society in which
labels matter less—a world in which our social institutions and policies reflect the fact
that social identities are not experienced in static, bounded, and homogeneous ways”
(The National Student Genderblind Campaign, 2012). The achievement of this goal is
largely though the advocating of gender-neutral housing policies at colleges and
universities. It provides instructions and encouragement to student activists to promoting
the creation of gender-neutral housing at their own universities, advising in the creation
of proposals for new policies to housing administrations and the gathering of support
within institutions of higher education for gender-neutral housing (The National Student
Genderblind Campaign, 2012)
The gender/sex segregation of university and college housing by rooms does not
take into account the fact that the population includes LGBT who might wish for
different roommates then themselves based on the same reasons that the rooms
segregated in the first place. While attempting to eliminate sexual tension and
awkwardness and preserve privacy for residents, the policy forces students that do not fit
into the assumed heterosexuality and gender/sex binary into those same situations. The
heterosexist policy assumes that there no interest in sexual relationships between
roommates.
Many homosexual students may feel violated or unsafe if asked to live with a
member of their same sex, in the same way that many universities currently
assume that heterosexual students would feel violated, unsafe, or at risk of
35
dangerous behavior if placed in a living situation with a member of the opposite
sex. (Bleiberg, 2004)
Transgender residents encounter difficulties with the policy before even moving
in, having to declare a gender or sex on forms when they might not fit into the binary
categories that are used to determine roommates (Bleiberg, 2004). This is particularly
true for transgender students that are in the process of transitioning between genders.
Having to identify themselves as either male or female “not only fails to recognize the
full complexity of gender identity, but also provides insufficient information for
roommate assignments” (Beemyn, et. al., 2005, p. 52). LGBT students that feel that there
is no place for them in the housing choices presented to them are unable to identify with
the housing community. Even though the policy allows LGBT students to be residents,
alienation and separation are still felt because the policy does not take LGBT students
into account. As such, their perception of their safety and possibility of conflict are
affected, as they feel to be outsiders in the system (Fanucce & Taub, 2010).
Benefits of Gender-neutral Housing for LGBT Residents
The option of being able to live in gender-neutral housing allows LGBT students
the options that they need to tailor their living experience to what they need. It reduces
the anxiety LGBT students can experience in having to live with a roommate that they
may feel attraction for, or a roommate that may have strong reservations about living with
someone who is not heterosexual. Negative interactions with peers in high school and
earlier often lead to the repression of sexual identity around those perceived to be
heterosexual. In being able to express their identity in gender-neutral housing without
36
fear of repercussions, LGBT residents can interact with the greater community,
expressing their identifiers without fear of it having negative consequences that affect
them at home (Robison, 2012). In eliminating the question as to whether gender or
biological sex should be the determining factor of how students are paired, gender neutral
options can allow students the freedom to choose what type of roommate they would feel
most comfortable living with. This would allow two masculine students to room
together, regardless of their biological sex, because they would feel safer living together
(Alexander, 2009; Bleiberg, 2004).
The visibility of gender-neutral housing can be a source for LGBT students to find
staff who are knowledgeable and sensitive about LGBT issues (Beemyn, et al., 2005). In
particular, student resident assistants are often more sensitive to transgender students'
issues and concerns than other members of general staff and because of their immediate
living vicinity, are much more readily available (Alexander, 2009). The visibility of the
gender-neutral housing also lessens the feelings of alienation from housing communities
for LGBT residents. Even if not participating in the gender-neutral housing, its visibility
promotes the appearance of an inclusive environment in housing (Alexander, 2009;
Robison, 2012).
Students taking part in gender-neutral housing would be doing so only through
their own choice, where those that want it would be the ones that would use it. As often,
those LGBT students that use gender-neutral housing, are ones that otherwise would have
chosen to live off campus so as to avoid living in situations that they would find
unwelcoming and unsafe. These students would be more likely to live on campus longer
37
to take advantage of the housing, which would in turn raise student development as
shown by the studies that point to greater student development through living on campus
then off campus (Bleiberg, 2004).
Concerns About Gender-Neutral Housing
Parents of potential residents are one of the largest groups that voice their
concerns over gender-neutral housing. Their concerns most often are about the sexual
intimacy that may occur between mixed-sex roommates, although sexual intimacy often
happens regardless of whether or not students are living in the same room. In contrast
though, non-heterosexual couples are able to room together in conventional housing
policies, but according to evidence from the NSGC, few couples take advantage of this
situation. It can be inferred that heterosexual couples will be as unlikely to apply for this
option, but reports from colleges and universities with gender-neutral housing is that only
about two to three percent of students that participate have selected roommates of a
different sex (Bleiberg, 2004; The National Student Genderblind Campaign, 2012). The
NSGC also pointed out in its advice to students that policy proposals should not be sent
to any Board of Trustees or Regents initially, as these tend to be comprised of older
individuals that can be more conservative and conventional than regular campus
administrators and more likely to dismiss such requests out of hand (The National
Student Genderblind Campaign, 2012). Students with strong religious beliefs might also
view it as sinful to live with someone not of their same biological sex and be against this
type of housing, however due to the optional nature of the policy those students would
not be forced to participate in those living situations (Bleiberg, 2004).
38
A larger fear brought up is the idea that some students, especially heterosexual
male students, would attempt to take advantage of the system to room with women and
potentially assault them. The NGSC counters this fear with the argument that sexual
violence is not only an occurrence of men towards women. Sexual violence can happen
as easily between students of the same gender or sex, or of women taking advantage of
men. Also most forms of gender-neutral housing require the selection of specific
roommates, where students would not be rooming with a randomly selected stranger (The
National Student Genderblind Campaign, 2012). LGBT students also have voiced some
fears that gender-neutral housing could be seen as a sign of attempting to segregate
themselves from others and give a target for those who would target them for harassment
(Bleiberg, 2004). Some have suggested instead that LGBT students would be better
accommodated through housing options that are specifically tailored for them. This
argument is also connected to LGBT student safety in residence halls, that specific
housing would be more secure and safer than normal housing. While this may be true, it
does not take into account that to take advantage of such housing, LGBT students must
openly reveal that they are LGBT. Proponents argue that gender-neutral housing, when
implemented, can relieve these problems by being housing-wide. Without being
localized in any specific section of housing and being open to any type of student, it
provides an inclusive environment without forcing students to have to reveal their
identities that they would prefer to keep private (The National Student Genderblind
Campaign, 2012).
39
Rationale for the Study
There are multiple possible benefits for a school to implement gender-neutral
housing, particularly for LGBT students. However, before it can be implemented, each
school needs to determine whether gender-neutral housing is an option that would be
wanted and used by its student population. Gender-neutral housing could be seen as an
attractive option for LGBT students, but it can still be viewed as a drastic change from
normal housing policies, which may discourage students from using it if offered. Also,
while some researchers have recommended gender-neutral housing for schools to
improve their inclusiveness for their LGBT students, few focused their research on the
actual benefits of gender-neutral housing or on whether it has succeeded or failed at the
universities that currently have the option. There is potential for gender-neutral student
housing to offer LGBT students a living community where they can fully express their
identities freely, however further study of it is needed in order to provide any benefits to
LGBT students.
Summary
The acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people by the rest of the
United States has been a slow progression, marked by fits and spurts of acceptance,
followed by reactionary discrimination, but ultimately has progressed towards greater
acceptance and equality. Discrimination and harassment are still faced by many,
especially youth in K-12 schools and in higher education. Heteronormativity and
homonegativity in higher education continue to impede LGBT students in their learning
40
process, by interfering with their sense of safety and self-worth. While on-campus
housing facilities are often the environment where students experience growth in their
self-identity, these can be areas where LGBT students can experience the most
harassment and discrimination. One of the relatively new resources that LGBT students
are able to access at certain schools within the United States is gender-neutral housing,
where students are not restricted by biological sex or gender in their choice of
roommates. Potentially, this gives LGBT students a living community where they do not
have to limit their expression of identity for fear of homonegativity or be excluded from
the community identity through heteronormativity (Bleiberg, 2004).
41
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Setting of the Study
This study involves a particular campus within a particular state university
system. However, it also involves an evolving trend in student housing which is
developing on various public and private university campuses across the United States.
Therefore, the setting for the study involves both the particular campus to which the
study’s findings are applied and the university community on a larger basis, where the
subject matter of the study is being developed and from which the researcher gathered
some relevant data.
The focus group of LGBT residents was drawn from Central California State
University which is located in a large metropolitan area and also close to rural areas. It
has been a commuter college for many years with most of its student body living off
campus, although recently has increased its on-campus housing under the leadership of
the current university President. Its student body as of 2012 numbers approximately
27,000, of which up 1,600 live on-campus. (California State University, Sacramento,
2012) Although the study was aimed at LGBT students, it was not a requirement to
identify as LGBT to participate.
Universities that were contacted to answer the survey on their individual genderneutral housing programs were Wesleyan University (Middletown, Connecticut),
Swarthmore College (Swarthmore, Pennsylvania), Hampshire College (Amherst,
42
Massachusetts), Brown University, (Providence, Rhode Island) University of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Oberlin College (Oberlin, Ohio), Clark
University (Worcester, Massachusetts), California Institute of Technology (Pasadena,
California), Stanford University (Stanford, California), University of California,
Riverside (Riverside, California), and Haverford College (Haverford, Pennsylvania).
Population and Sample
The population of the students affected by this research was the estimated 1,600
students living on the campus that is the subject of the study. The sample is those
students who learned through the campus PRIDE office that a focus group on campus
housing would be conducted. All students who responded to the invitation to participate
were included in the focus group itself. One student who had intended to participate was
unable to attend for medical reasons. The final focus group consisted of four
undergraduate students at the institution. Through the process some students identified
themselves as LGBT, while others did not state whether they were LGBT. Of the
students that did self-identify during the focus group, one student self-identified as a gay
male and another student self-identified as non-heterosexual. The non-heterosexual
student and remaining two students both spoke in the focus group of difficulties with
male residents being in the female restroom, what the students in the focus group referred
to as “ours.” The researcher has inferred from these comments that the three students
then identify as female either by gender, sex, or both.
The population of universities was all universities known to the researcher which
43
are reputed to have housing policies that include a gender neutral option or equivalent.
Of the eleven universities asked to participate in the survey, four returned a completed
survey, Hampshire College, Wesleyan University, Clark University, and University of
California, Riverside, all of which were used for data.
Design of the Study
This study explores the following research questions:
1. What are some of the ways in which colleges and universities which offer oncampus student housing accommodate students with various sexual and
gender orientations in their housing policies through policies which include
gender-neutral options?
2. What are the positive and negative aspects of housing that would inform
students on making a choice to live in gender-neutral housing?
3. What are student attitudes about including in the residential program the
option for students to choose roommates without reference to sex/gender?
The data gathering and analysis was comprised of two parts. A focus group of
undergraduate students interested in the university’s housing policies and options
particularly in regard to gender-neutral housing and surveys including both fixed choice
and open ended questions that were sent to universities that already had some form of
gender-neutral housing. The researcher had hoped to also include an open-ended
interview with a representative of the student residential life department of the university
where this study took place. However, the researcher was not able to obtain such an
44
interview. In addition to this data, the researcher has utilized data from published studies
and data provided by many universities and organized by public sources regarding trends
in student housing and student housing policies.
The focus group involved a discussion of the students experiences in participating
in the student life of the university including by living on campus and their experience of
the receptivity of the university’s on campus climate to LGBT students and their needs
and expectations. In particular, the focus group specifically discussed issues of housing,
access, acceptance and comfort related to sexual identity, gender identity and or sexual
orientation. It should be noted that the focus group participants included members who
self-designate as male, as female, as other and included both heterosexual and nonheterosexual orientations. In addition they were asked about whether gender-neutral
housing would be an acceptable option for them to live in.
The surveys that were distributed to the universities which were identified as
having gender-neutral housing programs focused on the reasons for the creation of
gender-neutral housing at that particular university, the process of its creation, the nature
of the housing option, whether benefits for students were actualized, and what difficulties
had been encountered because the housing option.
Data Collection
The focus group took place in a small room in an office within the student union.
It was moderated by the researcher, with both notes taken by the researcher and a taped
recording of the proceedings. All participants signed a consent form releasing the
45
information they provided, with the understanding that their identity would be kept
confidential. The focus group itself took approximately one and a half hours. No
incentives were given to the participants other than the opportunity to participate.
Universities with a gender-neutral housing program were initially contacted
through electronic mail, requesting their time to fill out the survey. The four universities
that responded were then sent the survey electronically, which they returned in the same
fashion.
Instrumentation
Student Focus Group
The initial questions put to the focus group by the researcher consisted of two
areas of inquiry. The first questions dealt with the experiences that the students have had
or are having while living on campus. In particular the group was asked if they had
experienced any difficulties in living on-campus due to their sexual orientation, sexual
identity, or gender identity. After describing the typical forms that gender-neutral
housing is implemented at universities, the students were asked a second set of questions
that involved their feelings towards the concept of gender-neutral housing. The students
were asked whether if given the choice they would choose to participate in a genderneutral housing program. Finally the students were asked if there were any other changes
to on-campus housing that they would like implemented. A copy of the focus group
questions is attached to this study as Appendix A.
46
Gender-Neutral Housing Survey
The survey sent to professional staff at universities with gender-neutral housing
were asked a number of questions that were quantitative in nature, but also allowed for
expanded qualitative answers if the responders felt they were needed. The questions
focused on what form of gender-neutral housing was being implemented on a campus,
why it had been implemented, the perceived and actual benefits of the program, and
difficulties encountered because of the program. The staff was also asked if the program
was successful in their opinion and if their university had any plans of further developing
their form of gender-neutral housing. A copy of the gender-neutral housing survey is
attached to this study as Appendix B.
Limitations
This study involves a small sample of respondents. The focus group respondents
are from one particular campus of one university system. The survey responses involve a
small number of universities, most of who are in the early stages of the development of
alternative housing options for their students. Therefore, the study’s results may not be
generally applicable to all campuses or may be superseded by events as housing choices
for students evolve on campuses. In addition, the researcher was not able to obtain
interview data from representatives of the university where the focus group members
attend. Therefore, projections as to the feasibility of housing option changes in this
campus must remain theoretical.
47
Data Analysis Procedures
The data gathered from both the focus group and surveys was analyzed as it
pertained to the research questions stated earlier by the researcher. A reflective analysis
was used to combine the data gathered from the two different sources.
The focus group responses were gathered through note taking rather than
recorded. The researcher’s notes were then coded into themes and the themes organized
among the various topics generated by the respondents as they relate to the research
analysis.
The survey responses were accumulated and descriptively analyzed where they
were quantifiable responses. Then the open-ended responses were coded and themes
identified. These themes and the coded focus group responses were then applied to the
research questions.
48
Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS
Organization
The data gathered from the students of the focus group and the surveyed staff is
organized by the research questions that had been asked earlier in the text. Because of
the nature of the research questions, each group could not or did not provide data that was
applicable to each of the questions. As such the data gathered from each source was
applied to the research questions as such: Question #1 from the professional staff,
Question #2 from both the focus group and professional staff, and Question #3 from the
focus group.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Research Question #1
What are some of the ways in which colleges and universities which offer oncampus student housing accommodate students with various sexual and gender
orientations in their housing policies through policies which include gender-neutral
options?
Analysis of University Data
The gender-neutral housing takes multiple forms between the four universities
that responded to the survey. While none have an exact same program, certain
characteristics are shared between different programs. The gender-neutral housing
49
program is optional for residents at University of California, Riverside (UCR), Wesleyan
University, and Clark University, but can be considered to be required at Hampshire
College due to their unique housing program. In the case of Hampshire, 90% of its living
areas are single rooms. The few rooms that do house multiple residents are genderneutral by default. UCR is the only school out of the four surveyed that restricts the
gender-neutral housing program to specific buildings and specific floors, while Clark is
the only university that does not require the students applying to live in gender-neutral
housing to have a specific roommate that they apply with. UCR will be adding to their
program however by expanding it to include apartments and not just residence halls. The
representative from Clark University mentioned in the survey that the administration was
“exploring the expansion of our program to include a first year option, or at least stop
prohibiting first year mixed gender housing on request.”
The creation of a gender-neutral housing option was reported to be student driven
effort at UCR, Wesleyan University, and Clark University, where student demand for the
option led to its creation. In contrast, Hampshire College replied in the survey that it has
had its current form of gender-neutral housing since the college's creation in 1970,
implying that it had been an administration driven decision. However, the purpose and
hoped for benefits by implementing gender-neutral housing reported in the surveys did
not align with the initial source for their creation. The described purposes and benefits of
the gender-neutral housing policies were varied by each university, although all shared
the purpose of providing an inclusive environment. UCR, Hampshire, and Clark
specifically marked that the inclusive environment was a hoped for benefit, while
50
Hampshire wrote that “...it was meant to encourage equity and an environment that
supported relationships across the greatest range of students,” fitting into the theme of
inclusiveness. Hampshire and Clark both expressed that a goal was that their genderneutral housing was to relieve possible stress for LGBT students. Wesleyan answered in
a similar theme to the reduction of stress for LGBT students, that its gender-neutral
housing provides an “...acknowledgment of gender being a spectrum and not a binary,”
providing a comforting environment for its students. An increased sense of safety for its
students through gender-neutral housing was also pointed out by Wesleyan, Hampshire,
and Clark, while only Hampshire saw gender-neutral housing as providing the benefit
that couples would be able to live together. All four universities answered in the survey
that the hoped for benefits that they had described earlier had been realized in their
gender-neutral housing program. University of California, Riverside also pointed out that
an unforeseen benefit from its program had garnered the university as a whole positive
attention in the national media.
Research Question #2
What are the positive and negative aspects of housing that would inform students
on making a choice to live in gender-neutral housing?
Analysis of University Data
The universities responding to the surveys pointed to a few difficulties that they
had encountered in the creation of gender-neutral housing. UC Riverside responded that
one of its difficulties had been in the length of time that it took to implement the new
housing option. Compared with the answers given by the other universities in the length
51
of time it took to implement their gender-neutral housing, UCR took the longest time at 1
and a half years. Clark University spent a year implementing its gender-neutral housing,
while Wesleyan University had its “...implemented within a few months, but refined over
a period of a few years.” One of the possible contributing factors to the length of
implementation by UCR may have been due to another difficulty expressed in the survey,
that some parties involved in its creation “...wanted it to be a larger program than it is...”.
Difficulties arising from outside the educational community were experienced by both
Clark and Hampshire, with Hampshire specifically having parents of prospective and new
students “...sometimes express concern around mixed gender bathroom use.” UCR
acknowledged that it had difficulty in a lack of interest in the program with students, with
Wesleyan similarly writing that its students sometimes “...didn't understand what was
being offered...” through its gender-neutral policy because of its very limited
accommodations beyond single rooms.
Analysis of Focus Group Data
Data gathered from the focus group conducted with the undergraduate students at
Central California State University fit into a number of themes that added insight into the
issues involved in creating housing that could be beneficial for students, especially those
that are LGBT. These themes included the selective nature of LGBT students in their
housing, the need for greater education on LGBT issues, and the changing campus
identity from being a commuter college.
The selective nature of LGBT students selecting housing was discussed a number
of times. The student that self-identified as gay discussed how he would have “shopped
52
around better” for schools and their housing programs, if he had known at the time of
choosing a school that he was gay. He specified that his needs now for more space, both
physical and personal, but more importantly now is the consideration of the sensitivity of
staff to LGBT issues and needs. In his experience, both professional and student housing
staff appear to have little training about LGBT student issues. In living off-campus now,
he no longer needs to worry about other people living in close proximity to him.
Opinions from the other student participants echoed the appeal of living off-campus,
particularly for second year students. Living off-campus allows students to live without
“interference” from staff and housing rules and regulations.
The theme of greater education on LGBT issues was previously mentioned when
the student that self-identified as gay spoke about the appearance of staff being untrained
for LGBT sensitivity. In addition, the participants felt that there needed to be a greater
effort at education for all residents on LGBT issues. One student pointed to a lack of
communication with the PRIDE office as evident of the housing staff's lack of LGBT
education, even though the two groups had worked together in the past for events. The
need for greater education was explained by another student as a way for students' with
“strong moral beliefs” to have greater understanding. The student gave the example that
many of her female hallmates were too embarrassed to use the female restrooms when
male students had gained entry to them. The student felt that they would have difficult
experiences with transgender hallmates in similar situations and that a better
understanding of transgender students could help. The student closely connected to the
PRIDE office also pointed out that LGBT issues and education was not a priority for the
53
campus-wide administration, pointing to the low level of funding that they receive and
only being staffed by students as examples.
The changing identity of the campus from a “commuter college” to one focused
more on campus life and housing was another theme discussed by the participants. All
were aware of identity shift that was being done. Some of the participants expressed
doubts over the success of the movement, describing housing as not being a “top
concern.” One participant pointed to the physical separation by distance between the new
housing buildings and the rest of campus as a failure in the goal of the administration.
Instead, the student felt that it should have had a more central presence, nearer to other
student life buildings, such as the Student Union.
Research Question #3
What are student attitudes about including in the residential program the option
for students to choose roommates without reference to sex/gender?
Analysis of Focus Group Data
Data gathered from the focus group conducted with the undergraduate students
was again organized into coherent themes in order to assess their experiences with living
on-campus and their opinions towards gender-neutral housing. The themes that arose
included floor cultures, interactions between students of differing gender and sexual
identities, and opinions on gender-neutral housing.
The theme about floor cultures arose from the participants comparing the living
environments that they were currently in. Two of the female students compared the
differences between their two floors from different buildings, where they concluded that
54
the physical characteristics informed the social cultures that developed there. One of the
female students described her floor as having fewer rooms to a floor then other buildings,
with more space between each room. As such, she described the social culture as “closed
door,” with little interaction between the residents. In contrast, the other female student
described her floor as “rowdy and close-quartered,” with other students often coming and
going between rooms. Both floors were split by sex, with men and women living at
opposite ends of the floor. Each floor also featured gender specific bathrooms with
locking mechanisms to only allow in the specific gender of each.
The theme of interactions between students of differing gender and sexual
identities was a discussed in many ways by the participants. The female student from the
“rowdy” floor described earlier, added that the bathroom locks were often overridden by
the residents, allowing free access for anyone to use the bathrooms regardless of gender.
While not described as normally causing a problem, the female student said that it did
lead to “pranks,” mostly with the stealing of clothing from showering female residents by
male residents. The other female student described her current worry about reoccurring
sexual violence in the on-campus housing. These incidents were described as being
directed against female students by male students, often involving alcohol. The student
was quick to point out though that these incidents were only “hearsay” and could not be
verified, however it was still a worrying experience for her. The female student that
described herself as being non-heterosexual described the experience of being “hesitant”
around her roommate because of her sexual orientation, even though it was not an
identity that the participant outwardly exhibited. She described herself as being
55
“conscious of the possible perception of herself from others due to her sexual
orientation.” This consciousness was not described as being beneficial or harmful,, but
could be understood to contribute to a stressful environment for the student.
The students opinions on gender-neutral housing was the last theme gathered from
the data. The participants in general believed that it would be good to have it as an option
for students that wished to live in such a setting, but felt that there should be additional
options available too. They were unable to articulate anything specific, but felt that “the
more options, the better.” Two issues with gender-neutral housing were voiced by the
group, issues that would lead to lack of participation by students. The first was that the
significance of gender-neutral housing both in purpose and benefits, would likely be lost
on incoming freshmen who were not LGBT. In particular, students that might be
questioning any of their identities who might benefit greatly from the option, would not
participate due to lack of knowledge. Another group that would be resistant to genderneutral housing might be students that have suffered traumatic experiences with people of
a different gender from theirs. As such, a gender-neutral housing policy could be viewed
by them as forcing them to live with people that they now fear and would be rejected as a
safe housing option. Even with these concerns noted, half of the student participants,
notably the students that self-identified as non-heterosexual, felt that they would be
willing to live in a gender-neutral housing option.
Findings and Interpretations
The focus group participants and the literature clearly indicate that LGBT students
56
face both prejudices and sometimes genuine physical risks in living on-campus in student
housing. These problems are not being addressed by the current student housing options
at the Central California State University campus. The uncertainty about inclusion,
acceptance and safety discourage LGBT students from living on-campus in the first place
and make it difficult for them to become involved in the campus community as fully as
resident students. Even those that do choose to live on-campus their first year in school,
often look to off-campus options as a better alternative for their safety and comfort.
Nonetheless, the focus group was clear that gender-neutral housing, to be helpful,
would have to be a part of a more general change in campus environment involving
education of the campus community about LGBT issues and people. Without this
education, any possible benefits from gender-neutral housing would be rendered moot, or
even have the possibility of creating other dangerous situations. The responding
universities also noted that the change to inclusion of a gender neutral option was part of
a larger process of learning and enlightenment.
Analysis of the programs established by the colleges that responded, as they
describe them, indicated that some of the fears raised by the focus group and within the
literature may have been actualized by the design choices of certain institutions. This
reinforces the finding from the focus group analysis that such an option needs to be part
of a larger process of integrating LGBT members into the entire campus community. For
example, Clark University’s responses do not indicate that it ties the request for gender
neutral housing with a request for a specific roommate. This omission could make it
possible for sexual predators of one sort or another to take advantage of the system. At
57
the same time, a requirement that a student seeking gender neutral housing must identify
a particular roommate could make the option unavailable to freshmen and other newly
arriving students or those with limited social groups. Clark University indicated in its
response that the institution may consider expanding the program to include first year
students and/or allow some first year students to participate in gender neutral housing at
their request, but does not explain how they would process such situations.
UC Riverside only allows certain areas to have gender neutral housing – certain
floors of certain buildings. The literature expresses fears that this could cause those areas
to become targeted by homophobic students and groups, including risks from off-campus.
UC Riverside indicates that it is considering expanding its gender neutral housing to
include university-affiliated student apartments. It is not clear from their responses what
the criteria currently are for students to live in a particular apartment or complex of
apartments.
The value of incorporating gender neutral housing into an overall inclusive
college environment is exemplified to some extent by the Hampshire College program.
On the one hand, the entire Hampshire College student housing program is gender neutral
more or less by default, since 95% of their rooms are single rooms. Nonetheless, the
remaining multiple occupancy rooms have no restrictions on sex or gender of occupants
either. However, clearly the prevalence of single occupancy rooms is unusual in the
college environment and does not offer a great deal of guidance to the management of
overcrowded student residences.
Since the college and university community nationwide is in the process of
58
coming to terms with the full continuum of sexual and gender identities which manifest
within the human community, determinations about housing options that can provide
acceptable living environments are still in the very early stages of development. The
evolution from single-sex dorms to co-ed dorms has not completely transitioned to a new
ethic of autonomy and privacy. The further evolution to shared residential patterns that
account for and provide comparable choices to students of any combination of sexual and
gender identities is in its early stages, when considered at all. The first step, according to
the focus group, is to create a campus which embraces the spectrum of difference and
actively combats entrenched preconceived dogmas regarding sexual identities and gender
roles. Appropriate housing arrangements are more likely to arise within such a campus.
It would appear from the university models and from the focus group process that
one impediment to university-determined programs of gender neutral housing is the lack
of an agreed vocabulary and discourse to explain what gender-neutral housing entails.
Another is the whole process of identity development which the transition from
adolescence to adulthood involves for all sexes and gender identities. Thus, focus group
students express a certain reservation that students who are still in the process of evolving
their gender and or sexual identities might not be able to take advantage of a genderneutral housing option because of the very identity-definition process they were
experiencing and unfamiliarity with their options. In addition, students were concerned
that they would not know what the housing option actually meant in practice and that the
housing choices proposed by the university might not be all that helpful. Furthermore,
universities like Wesleyan and UC Riverside note that uncertainty and/or apathy by
59
students has resulted in a low level of participation in the option. As will be more fully
discussed in the conclusions and recommendations, the best solutions to housing choices
for LGBT students may reside in increasing the choices which students are allowed to
make for themselves in regard to on-campus housing, and in improving the campus
environment where young people are working to build their authentic self-identities.
Students’ choice of roommate, for example, when not bounded by the constraints of sex
and gender identity would simply make all reasonable options possible as chosen by the
students themselves.
60
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Before the question of whether gender-neutral housing should be created at
Central California State University, other questions needed to be answered first. What
have been the experiences, both beneficial and negative, of universities that have already
implemented gender-neutral housing? Would students at Central California State
University want and use gender-neutral housing? What are the benefits to gender-neutral
housing for LGBT students?
To answer these questions, the researcher accessed two sources for data. To
determine whether or not gender-neutral housing was something that was wanted and be
beneficial for LGBT students, a focus group of LGBT students at Central California State
University was held by the researcher. Universities that already had forms of genderneutral housing were surveyed to learn whether their programs were successful and what
connections could be drawn between those implementations and the results from the
focus group of students and their wants and needs.
Conclusions
From the results of the focus group and surveys, while gender-neutral housing can
provide LGBT students with a needed resource at Central California State University,
there are other actions that need to happen first. With focus group participants
61
experiencing on-campus housing staff as out of touch with LGBT student issues, any
implementation of gender-neutral housing would not function to its greatest potential
without active support from the housing administration with its staff. Housing
administration needs to make a commitment to a gender-neutral environment, regardless
of what the particular residential choices may be. Thus, staff need to be both required to
increase their training in LGBT issues that affect their residents and provided with
effective, high quality training to bring about changes in understanding and behavior that
goes beyond mere introduction to a new set of “rules.” Then, the university, at the level
of its residential services administration, and more broadly, needs to advertise the fact
that a change has taken place in its commitment to working with its LGBT student
population and understanding their differences, wants, and needs. Both the focus group
and Wesleyan University pointed out that some students would have difficulty in
understanding the purpose of gender-neutral housing. If the staff are not adequately
trained on LGBT issues and have not developed a genuine sensitivity to those issues (a
concern of the focus group participants), then they would be unable to adequately
promote or even explain gender-neutral housing to those students who could benefit from
it the most and students who will might not have been exposed to positive information
and experiences with LGBT people. Gender-neutral housing will only be able to succeed
if there is active and able support for it from housing staff within an overall university
environment of inclusion and if there is significant student interest in living in genderneutral housing.
62
Recommendations
More research can be conducted with the LGBT student population of Central
California State University as to their needs for student housing. One of the difficulties is
the unknown numbers of the student population that identify as LGBT. The ability to
collect that data is being developed for the higher education system in California, where
students will be encouraged to fill out survey on a volunteer basis to document their
sexual orientation and possibly their sexual and gender identities.
From the focus group the PRIDE office recommended that Safe Zones should be
mandatory for all residence halls, not just on a voluntary basis. Further, Central
California State University needs to build up its involvement in housing in general,
before any attempt at gender-neutral housing. If the school is serious about changing its
image from a commuter school to a residential community, then there needs to be more
visible change towards that goal.
In the meantime, the university and its residential services leadership in particular
need to follow the evolving trends in universities and colleges across the country and
around the world that seek to eliminate stigmas associated with various gender and sexual
identities and to create options for inclusion in the community life of the university where
students do not feel the need to repress their identities to be accepted or live at risk for
expressing their identities.
63
Appendix A
Questions for Focus Group on Experiences on Campus
Have you encountered any difficulties in living in on-campus housing, based on your
sex/gender/sexual orientation?
How are conditions in dormitory living for you now?
“Gender-neutral” housing is a concept that has been developed in some university
communities to try to make on-campus housing more comfortable and less stressful for
students regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Gender-neutral housing
typically is an optional choice for students, most of the time for non-freshmen who have a
specific roommate they are requesting.
Would gender-neutral housing be an acceptable choice for you if offered at this
university? Why or why not?
Can you think of any other changes to on-campus housing choices and policies that
would make living on-campus a more positive experience for all students?
64
Appendix B
Survey for Professional Staff
1. What is your position (title or job heading) at your university?___________________
2. Has your work involved the implementation or operation of gender-neutral housing
options at your university? [Yes__] [No__]
3. Are you willing to have your university identified in this research (you will not be
personally identified in any case)? [Yes__] [No__]
4. What form does gender-neutral housing take at your university? (Select all that apply)
[ ] Optional
[ ] Specific roommate requested
[ ] Required
[ ] Only on certain floors
[ ] Only in certain buildings
[ ] Only under special circumstances
[ ] Other:(Please explain)_____________________________________________
5. What impetus was there to create gender-neutral housing at your university? (Select
all that apply)
[ ] Student driven
[ ] Incident driven
[ ] Administration driven
[ ] Community driven
[ ] Other:(Please explain)_____________________________________________
6. What were the hoped for benefits from gender-neutral housing? (Select all that
apply)
[ ] Increased sense of safety
[ ] Inclusive environment
[ ] For couples to be able to live together
[ ] To relieve possible stress on LGBT residents
[ ] Other: (Please explain)____________________________________________
7. Have these benefits been realized on your university?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Mixed (Please explain)____________________________________________
8. Has your university experienced any unexpected benefits from implementing this
housing program?
65
[ ] Yes (Please explain)______________________________________________
[ ] No
9. Has your university experienced any particular difficulties as a result of implementing
this housing program?
[ ] Yes (Please explain)______________________________________________
[ ] No
10. How long did it take to implement the new housing option(s)? [ _____months] [
_____years]
11. Are gender-neutral student housing options still being implemented on your campus?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Uncertain (Please explain)__________________________________________
12. What if any, were the difficulties in initiating and starting up such housing?
[ ]Time for implantation
[ ]Limits on physical space for rooms
[ ]Negative opinions from:
[ ] Students
[ ] Faculty and Staff
[ ] Outside Community
[ ] Parents of students
[ ] Outside Sources
[ ] Other: (Please explain)______________________________________
[ ]Lack of funding
[ ]Lack of interest from students
[ ]Other: (Please explain)_____________________________________________
13. How successful do you consider the introduction and operation of your university's
gender-neutral housing option? Select one:
[ ]Very Successful [ ] Successful [ ] Neutral Effect [ ] Unsuccessful [ ]Very
Unsuccessful
14. Does your university have any plans on expanding or further developing your
gender-neutral student housing offerings?
[ ] Yes(Please explain)_______________________________________________
[ ] No
[ ] Maybe (Please explain)____________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in this research.
66
References
Alexander, J. (2005). Transgender rhetorics: (Re)composing narratives of the gendered
body. College Composition and Communication, 57(1), 45-82.
Alexander, J. E. (2009). Implications for student affairs of negative campus climates for
transgender students. Journal of Student Affairs, 18, 55-61.
Angeli, M. (2009). Access and equity for all students: Meeting the needs of LGBT
students California Postsecondary Education Commission Report: California
Postsecondary Education Commission.
Asher, N. (2007). Made in the (multicultural) U.S.A.: Unpacking tension of race, culture,
gender, and sexuality in education. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 65-73.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers.
Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvak, S., Montero, D., & Wydra, M. (2007).
America's changing attitudes toward homosexuality, civil unions, and samegender marriage: 1977-2004. Social Work, 52(1), 71-79.
Bartlett, T. (2002). Freshmen pay, mentally and physically, as they adjust to life in
college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(21), A35.
Beemyn, B. (2003). Serving the needs of transgender college students. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(1), 33-50.
Belkin, A. (2001). The Pentagon's gay ban is not based on military necessity. Journal of
Homosexuality, 41(1), 103-119.
67
Biegel, S., & Kuehl, S. J. (2010). Safe at school: Addressing the school environment and
LGBT safety through policy and legislation. East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes
Center for Education Research and Practice.
Bleiberg, S. (2004). A case for mixed-sex university housing policies. The Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 33(1), 3-9.
Blumenfeld, W. J., & Cooper, R. M. (2010). LGBT and Allied youth responses to
cyberbullying: Policy implications. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy,
3(1), 114-133.
Braxton, J., Milem, J. & Sullivan, A. (2000). The influence of active learning on the
college student departure process. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus,
Ohio), 71(5), 569-590.
Brewer, P. R. (2003). The shifting foundations of public opinion about gay rights. The
Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1208-1220.
Brown, M. J., & Henriquez, E. (2008). Socio-demographic predictors of attitudes towards
gays and lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 6(3), 193-202.
Burgess, A. (2005). Queering heterosexual spaces: Positive space campaigns disrupting
campus heteronormativity. Canadian Woman Studies, 24(2-3), 27-30.
Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., & Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 23-38.
Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level
examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 17-28. doi: 10.1037//00219010.86.1.17.
68
California Monthly. (1965, February). Free speech movement chronology. Retrieved from
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/FSM/chron.html
California State University, Sacramento. (2012). Housing and Residential Life. Retrieved
from http://www.csus.edu/housing/Parents%20and%20Guardians/index.html
Callahan, C. J. (2001). Protecting and counseling gay and lesbian students. Journal of
Humanistic Counseling, Education, & Development, 40(1).
Cheng, D. (2004). Students' sense of campus community: What it means, and what to do
about it. NASPA Journal (Online), 41(2), 216-234.
Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuting versus resident students. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity
management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex
Roles, 45(5/6).
Confessore, N., & Barbaro, M. (2011). New York allows same-sex marriage, becoming
largest state to pass law, The New York Times.
Crocco, M. S. (2001). The missing discourse about gender and sexuality in the social
studies. Theory Into Practice, 40(1), 65-71.
Dankmeijer, P. (2008). Needs for education about LGBT issues by lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.empowerls.com/doc/peters_publicaties/Dankmeijer_QPI_2008.pdf
Eldridge, V. L., Mack, L., & Swank, E. (2006). Explaining comfort with homosexuality
in rural America. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(2), 39-56.
69
Enochs, W. & Roland, C. (2006). Social adjustment of college freshmen: The importance
of gender and living environment. College Student Journal, 40(1), 63-73.
Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., & Hamburger, M. E. (2012). Bullying perpetration and
subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 50, 60-65.
Fanucce, M. L., & Taub, D. J. (2010). The relationship of homonegativity to LGBT
students' and non-LGBT students' perceptions of residence hall climate. The
Journal of College and University Student Housing, 36(2), 24-41.
Farris, A. K. (2010). The freshmen adjustment process: Commuter life versus residence
life. California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Fisher, B. S., Harteman, J. L., Cullen, F. T. & Turner, M. G. (2002). Making campuses
safer for students: The Clery Act as a symbolic legal reform. Stetson Law Review,
32(1), 61-89.
Fisher, B. S. & Sloan, J. (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college
women: Is the 'shadow of sexual assault hypothesis supported? Justice Quarterly,
20(3), 633-659.
Fisher, B., Sloan, J., Cullen, F. & Le, C. (2006). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and
sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36(3), 671-710.
Flowers, L. (2004). Effects of living on campus on African American students'
educational gains in college. NASPA Journal (Online), 41(2), 277-293.
Fogg, P. (2008). Dorm therapy. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(26), B24.
70
Frankhouser, W. M. (March, 1997). The ivory tower in violent America: An historical
perspective. Paper presented at the annual joint meeting of the popular culture
association. San Antonio, Texas, march 26-29.
Fromme, K., Corbin, W. & Kruse, M. (2008). Behavioral risks during the transition from
high school to college. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1497-1504.
doi:10.1037/a0012614.
Green, A. I. (2006). Until death do us part? The impact of differential access to marriage
on a sample of urban men. Sociological Perspectives, 49(2), 163-189.
Gregory, D. E. & Janosik, S. M. (2006). The views of senior residence life and housing
administrators on the Clery Act and campus safety. Journal of College and
University Student Housing, 12(1), 50-57.
Griffith, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis of cohesion's relation to stress, well-being,
identification, disintegration, and perceived combat readiness. Military
Psychology, 14(3), 217-239.
Halawah, I. (2006). The impact of student-faculty informal interpersonal relationships on
intellectual and personal development. College Student Journal, 40(3), 670-678.
Heffner, P. S. (2010). The subjective life experiences of identified or perceived male
GBTQ adolescents in high school settings: a retrospectives study. California State
University, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Henry, P. J., & Reyna, C. (2007). Value judgments: The impact of perceived value
violations on American political attitudes. Political Psychology, 28(3), 273-298.
71
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates
and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477.
Herek, G. M. (1993). Documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus:
The Yale Sexual Orientation Survey. Journal of Homosexuality, 25(4), 15-30.
Herek, G. M. (1996). Social Science, Sexual Orientation, and Military Personnel Policy.
In G. M. Herek, J. B. Jobe & R. M. Carney (Eds.), Out in Force: Sexual
Orientation and the Military. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(19), 19-22. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00051
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond "homophobia": Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma
in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1(2), 6-24.
Hershberger, S. L. (1997). A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation.
The Journal of Sex Research, 34(2), 212-222.
Hill, R. J., Childers, J., Childs, A. P., Cowi, G., Hatton, A., Lewis, J. B., et al. (2002). In
the shadow of the arch: Safety and acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer students at the University of Georgia. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia.
Hinrichs, D. W., & Rosenberg, P. J. (2002). Attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual
persons among heterosexual liberal arts college students. Journal of
Homosexuality, 43(1), 61-84.
Human Rights Campaign. (2012). Marriage and relationship recognition, state laws
Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/state
72
Iconis, R. (2010). Reducing homophobia within the college community. Contemporary
Issues in Education Research, 3(5), 67-70.
Johnson, J. (1997). Commuter college students: What factors determine who will persists
and who will drop out? College Student Journal, 32, 323-332.
Lafreniere, K., Ledgerwood, D. & Docherty, A. (1997). Influences of leaving home,
perceived family support, and gender on the transition to university. Guidance
and Counseling, 12, 14-18.
Lannutti, P. J. (2007). The influence of same-sex marriage on the understanding of samesex relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 53(3), 135-151.
Lipka, S. (2008). Matchmaker, matchmaker, find me a roommate. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 55(3), A1, A8.
Marzullo, M. A., & Herdt, G. (2011). Marriage rights and LGBTQ youth: The present and
future impact of sexuality policy changes. Journal of the Society for
Psychological Anthropology, 39(4), 526-552.
Mooney, C. Z., & Schuldt, R. G. (2008). Does morality policy exist? Testing a basic
assumption. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 199-218.
Moore, D. W., & Carroll, J. (May 17, 2004). Support for gay marriage/civil unions edges
upward, Gallup News Service.
Moradi, B. (2009). Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and military
cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology, 21(4),
513-533.
73
Moskos, C. (1993). From citizens' army to social laboratory. The Wilson Quarterly, 17(1),
83-94.
Newport, F. (March 1, 1999). Some change over time in American attitudes towards
homosexuality, but negativity remains, Gallup News Service.
NYU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Student Center. (2012). Glossary of
Important LGBT Terms. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/life/student-life/diversity-atnyu/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-and-queer-student-center/glossary-of-important-lgbtterms.html
Olson, L. R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J. T. (2006). Religion and public opinion about
same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 340-360.
Parrott, D. J., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2002). Homophobia: Personality and
attitudinal correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1269-1278.
Pattison, K. C. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender undergraduate students:
Access and attitudes to international study. California State University,
Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Paulson, A. (2003). Debate on gay unions splits along generations: Recent polls suggest
that young adults and older people view gay rights in starkly different terms. The
Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p01s02-ussc.html
Pawleski, J. G., Perrin, E. C., Foy, J. M., Allen, C. E., Crawford, J. E., Monte, M. D., et
al. (2006). The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on
the health and well-being of children. Pediatrics, 118(1), 349-364.
74
Pittman, L. & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and
psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 76(4), 343-361.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences
of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1244-1261. doi: 10.1037//00219010.86.6.1244
Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher education for
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.
Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people:
A national perspective. New York City, NY: The National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force Policy Institute.
Rankin, S. R. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student
Services, 2005(111), 17-23.
Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists.
Journal of College Student Development, 48(3), 311-330.
Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of
the field. Educational Researcher, 9(2), 132-141.
Ressler, P., & Zosky, D. (2008). Benign heteronormativity limits LGBT students' social
and academic engagement: Illinois State University.
75
Robison, M. K. (2012). Through the eyes of gay and male bisexual college students: A
critical visual qualitative study of their experiences. Georgia State University,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Rubin, A. M. (2000). Some study-abroad programs start to consider needs of gay
students: They need warning about some countries, and may face difficult
transitions returning from others. NAFSA: Rainbow SIG, 4(2).
Sanlo, R. L., Rankin, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2002). Our place on campus: LGBT services
and programs in higher education (pp. 33-40). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Schott-Ceccacci, M., Holland, L., & Matthews, T. L. (2009). Attitudes toward the LGBT
community in higher education. Spaces for Difference: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 2(1), 36-47.
Schulte, L. J., & Battle, J. (2004). The relative importance of ethnicity and religion in
predicting attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 47(2),
127-142.
Secretary of Defense. (1993). Memorandum on policy on homosexual conduct in the
armed forces. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/military/1993/Aspin.Directive.On.Ban.
Security On Campus, Inc. (2000). Security On Campus, Inc. Retrieved from
http://ww.securityoncampus.org
Sloan, J. J., Fisher, B. & Cullen, F. (April, 1997). Assessing the student right-to-know act
of 1990: An analysis of the victim reporting practices of colleges and university
students. Crime & Delinquency, 43(2), 148-168.
76
Steffens, M. C. (2005). Implicit and explicit attitudes towards lesbians and gay men.
Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 39-66.
Terman, S. (2004). The practical and conceptual problems with regulating harassment in
a discriminatory institution. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military, University of California, Santa Barbara.
The National Student Genderblind Campaign. (2012). The National Student Genderblind
Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.genderblind.org.
The Pew Research Center. (2006). Less opposition to gay marriage, adoption and military
service.
Toews, M. & Yazedjian, A. (2007). College adjustment among freshmen: Predictors for
White and Hispanic males and females. College Student Journal, 41(4), 891-900.
Upcraft, M. Lee, Gardner, J., Barefoot B. & Associates. (2005). Challenging &
supporting the first-year student: Handbook for improving the first year of
college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Urani, M., Miller, S. & Johnson, J. (2003). Homesickness in socially anxioius first year
college students. College Student Journal, 37(3), 392-399.
Wallace, D. L. (2002). Out in the academy: Heterosexism, invisibility, and double
consciousness. College English, 65(1), 53-66.
Walters, M. M. (2010). The Jeanne Clery Act: Making campuses safer through
compliance, collaboration and training. California State University, Sacramento,
Sacramento, CA.
77
Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Marshall, W. J., & Clark, C. (2009). The decline of in
loco parentis and the shift to coed housing on college campuses. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 24(1), 21-36. doi: 10.1177/0743558408326914
Yang, A. S. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. The Public Opinion
Quarterly, 61(3), 477-507.