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

Michael L. Fanucce • Deborah J. Taub

data suggest that this relationship exists across all students in residence halls. Both LGBT students and their heterosexual peers (both allies and non-allies) perceive various portions of their residence hall climate negatively in the presence of homonegative attitudes. Although there was a significant difference between the perceptions that LGBT students and non-LGBT students have about homonegativity in the residence hall environment, scores on the RHCS were found to be related to homonegativity levels for both groups. For the heterosexual student group, a similar negative (albeit weaker) correlation with residence hall climate was present. This makes sense given the social stigma surrounding LGBT students’ “alternative” orientation and gender expression in that heterosexual students often tease one another with terms considered to be derogatory toward LGBT people (e.g. “fag,” “dyke,” “fence-sitter,” etc). According to Blumenfeld (2000), homonegativity affects everyone by creating layers of privilege for non-LGBT citizens, which impacts relationship formation between heterosexuals; inhibits close, intimate relationships with members of the same sex; compromises the integrity of heterosexuals by requiring them to continue to oppress and treat others who are not a member of the majority poorly; results in targeting, badgering, intimidating, and sometimes silencing those who are perceived to be LGBT but who are in fact heterosexual; prevents development of authentic self-identity for some LGBT individuals; and causes young people to become sexually active earlier in order to establish their “desired” sexual identity (thereby causing increases of STDs in young people). In con-

sidering Blumenfeld’s list of numerous homonegative impacts on heterosexual individuals, it would follow that non-LGBT students who are aware of social issues surrounding them would find that homonegativity has an important impact upon their residence hall climate, especially considering the need to avoid being wrongfully labeled. It appears that a climate of homonegativity in the residence hall environment is both stigmatizing and problematic for all students, not just for LGBT students. When homonegativity is added into the community development equation, it appears that—for all students—the more homonegative the environment, the poorer the overall community development will seem. Students who are unable to identify with their living environment and unable to feel socially supported due to the homonegativity present within the environment will need additional support from professionals and programmatic interventions in order to be successful both in and out of the classroom. The stronger (more moderate) negative relationship between the LGBTRHCI scores and the RHCS subscales suggests that homonegative attitudes affect the perceptions that LGBT students have about residence hall climate more than they do their heterosexual peers. This interaction is expected and understandable considering that homonegativity targets members of the LGBT community. Although heterosexual students may be impacted by homonegative comments in their environment, they are not members of the targeted or socially oppressed group that the homonegative sentiments intend to harm. In fact, given results from the NGLTFS discussed earlier,

36

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
