Journal of College & University Student Housing "Housing While Black" Theme Issue - 21

Within-Group Differences in Black Students' Housing Experience
Black students who identified as bisexual (M = 1.8, SD = 2.0), gay (M = 1.8, SD = 2.1),
or lesbian (M = 1.8, SD = 1.8) or preferred not to respond (M = 1.9, SD = 2.3) had the
highest means. For the BAS scale, a little more variation was shown on mean scores.
Black men (M = 3.9, SD = .7), Black students with no disability diagnosis (M = 3.8,
SD = .7), and Black straight students (M = 3.9, SD = .7) had the highest mean scores,
while Black students with another gender identity had the lowest mean score (M = 3.1,
SD = 1.1). For the PHI scale, Black men (M = 3.8, SD = .8), Black students with no disability
diagnosis (M = 3.7, SD = .8), Black straight students (M = 3.7, SD = .8), and Black
gay students (M = 3.7, SD = .9) had the highest mean scores while Black students with
another gender identity had the lowest mean scores (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0). Lastly, for the
FS scale, Black students with another gender identity (M = 3.3, SD = .7) and Black queer
students (M = 3.1, SD = .8) had the highest mean scores, while Black men (M = 2.5,
SD = .9) and Black straight students (M = 2.5, SD = .9) had the lowest mean scores.
For the second research question, three OLS regression models were used to examine
the relationships between the four housing scales and three climate-based NSSE
scales: Supportive Environment, Student-Faculty Interaction, and Perceived Gains
(Table 5, see page 20). The adjusted R2 for all three models indicated that a small proportion
of variance (8-20%) was explained by the independent variables, suggesting that
other factors are contributing to these relationships. RLA, BAS, PHI, and roommate
selection were all significant predictors of a supportive environment for Black students
in on-campus housing. BAS (B = .44, p < .001) predicted supportive environment the
most, followed by PHI (B = .19, p < .001), roommate selection (B = .12, p < .01), and
RLA (B = .04, p < .001). For student-faculty interaction, RLA, PHI, FS, and roommate
selection were significant predictors. PHI (B = .30, p < .001) predicted the frequency
of student-faculty interaction more than did roommate selection (B = .18, p < .001),
FS (B = .10, p < .001), and RLA (B = .03, p < .01). All independent variables were significant
predictors of perceived gains for Black students in on-campus housing. PHI (B = .39,
p < .001) predicted how much Black students perceived that their institution helped
them gain specific skills more than did BAS (B = .26, p < .001), roommate selection
(B = .11, p < .01), FS (B = .10, p < .001), and RLA (B = .03, p < .01).
Seniors
Table 3 also includes descriptive statistics for the two housing scales for seniors. Senior
Black students reported some agreement with feeling safe and feeling that they belong
in on-campus housing (M = 3.7, SD = .8). They also experienced some financial stress
while living on campus (M = 2.6, SD = .9).
. . . Black staff are continually being harmed by the effects of living in an
environment where hate speech is often responded to with merely educational
efforts, and very little community care takes place afterward-and, even rarer
still, the care that also includes and centers the Black staff within the community.
18 The Journal of College and University Student Housing
Journal of College & University Student Housing "Housing While Black" Theme Issue

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing "Housing While Black" Theme Issue
