journal_vol49no2 - 23

Gender-Inclusive Housing: A Second Look
participants in their community. Policies and processes addressing roommate departure
were the most common part of the administrative process. In some cases, institutions
worked to maintain the gender-inclusive designation of the space, whereas others
reverted the room or suite to a designation based on sex assigned at birth (or sometimes
gender) for the current residents. Some institutions granted students a limited
period of time to fill the vacancy, after which the institution could fill it with someone
who had previously agreed to select gender-inclusive housing, thus allowing the space
to remain gender-inclusive.
Bathrooms. Some institutions featured bathrooms in their policies (n = 15), indicating
that spaces in gender-inclusive housing were gender-specific, gender-inclusive,
a mix of gender-specific and gender-inclusive, or private/single-use. In some cases,
housing facilities designated for GIH were based on the presence of private/single-use
bathrooms. In most cases, when policies addressed bathrooms, they did so in detail.
Using the policy to educate. Many policy statements included sections of definitions
or detailed histories of gender-inclusive housing at the institution (n = 29).
The researchers labeled these as policies designed to provide education to the reader
about GIH.
Lessons Learned
Seventy-nine institutions responded to the question about lessons learned from the
implementation of gender-inclusive housing. Four themes emerged: institutional support,
campus partners, the student voice, and education and communication.
Institutional support. Seven respondents indicated that institutional support for
implementing GIH was crucial to its development and success. Some institutions
struggled with this, with some referring to the political climate within their state as
a challenge.
Campus partners. Six respondents reflected on involving campus partners in implementing
GIH. A common sentiment was an emphasis on collaborating with campus
partners to ensure the success of gender-inclusive initiatives. This took several
different forms, such as partnering with campus LGBTQ offices to develop the most
inclusive policies possible and to advocate for staff training.
The student voice. Five respondents expressed an emphasis on students directly
leading the change. For example, one stated, " Having students drive the process is
critical. " The role of student voices in this process seemed to be closely related to securing
institutional commitment and support, suggesting that it is important for student
affairs educators to view students as partners in the process.
Communication and education. Seventeen respondents emphasized the importance
of clear communication and education. Some indicated the need for clear communication
with students due to issues with some students not understanding what
gender-inclusive housing is. For example, as one respondent explained,
You need to make it clear when students are applying for Gender Inclusive Housing what
it really means. We have a video students must watch, and two sign-offs and follow up to
avoid people signing up and not meaning to sign up.
20 The Journal of College and University Student Housing

journal_vol49no2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of journal_vol49no2