The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2 - 26

Michael L. Fanucce • Deborah J. Taub

volvement and satisfaction; persistence and graduation; personal growth and development; and strengthening of values, attitudes, and moral judgment (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994). On-campus living status has been shown to be consistently related to increases in students’ likelihood to be involved and engaged in the social, cultural, and extracurricular realm of the institution (Pascarella et al.). Campus residents tend to be more satisfied with their college experience than do their non-residential peers (Pascarella et al.). Furthermore, students who live on campus are more likely to persist through the entirety of their education and graduate at a higher rate than do their non-residential counterparts. Finally, campus residents tend to make greater advances developmentally than do their peers who live off campus (Pascarella et al.). Unfortunately, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students often encounter difficulties on campus due to their sexual orientation (D’Augelli & Rose, 1990; Herek, 1989; Rankin, 2003). Evans and Wall (1991) and Hughes (1994) reported that LGBT students encountered many challenges within their residence halls. Given what an important educational impact residential living can have on students, it is important to understand how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students fit into on-campus living settings and how they are influenced by the residential environment. Homophobia in recent years has appeared to drop off in the United States as more of the population seems to be more accepting of LGBT individuals; however, heterosexism remains a major facet of LGBT students’ experiences (Burn, Kadlec, & Rexer, 2005). D’Augelli and Rose (1990) found that in a college or universi26

ty setting a large portion (nearly three-fourths) of lesbian women and gay men experienced some form of verbal abuse, whether heterosexist or homophobic, and nearly all expected future harassment to occur. Herek (1989) found that almost 92% of gay men and lesbian women reported having been targets of harassment on campus. D’Augelli and Rose (1990) found that among freshmen nearly “30% would prefer a college environment with only heterosexuals” and that, while every respondent showed some form of hostility toward gay men and lesbian women, nearly half believed that homosexuality was wrong and found gay men to be “disgusting” (p. 490). More recently, the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Survey (NGLTFS) (Rankin, 2003) found that 36% of LGBT respondents had experienced harassment within the past year, with 89% of this harassment being derogatory remarks (79% of which came from fellow students). Twenty percent of LGBT respondents feared for their physical safety, while 51% reported concealing their sexual orientation. Forty-three percent of respondents reported their overall campus climate as homophobic, with over half of the respondents reporting that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students were likely to be harassed on campus. Slater (1993) established that the psychological impacts of internalized homophobia can include “self-doubt, isolation, attempt[ing to be] heterosexual...identifying with aggressors...inability to function socially or academically, self-hatred/loathing, and selfdestructive behavior” (p. 197). Research suggests that very little has changed since D’Augelli and Rose’s 1990

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITy STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2