The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2 - 38

Michael L. Fanucce • Deborah J. Taub

better understand the differing relationships that may manifest differently for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender students when not lumped together in a single group. Fifth, additional studies will help researchers comprehend more clearly why heterosexual students also perceive their residence hall negatively in the presence of homonegative attitudes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Several implications for practice in higher education and student affairs are suggested by these findings. First, interventions designed to fight the stigmatization of LGBT individuals are essential to help counter the effects of homonegativity. Research has shown that individuals are more likely to be accepting of LGBT individuals if they know and interact with them (Cramer, 2002), especially when they are able to prove stereotypes false or inaccurate. Second, colleges and universities that currently have “soft” non-discrimination policies (policies that are verbalized in the form of writing or speech but serve only as figureheads for public viewing), including those for sexual orientation and gender expression, need to ensure that these policies are in fact upheld in order to demonstrate that they are living policies and that perpetrating homonegative behaviors will not be tolerated. According to this study’s findings, this type of policy execution will help both LGBT and non-LGBT students live and coexist more easily in residence halls. Third, resource libraries and peer-counseling trainings designed to help provide resident assistants with necessary tools for educating students in their halls about LGBT issues and the effects of homonegativity need to be developed. Using these resources and skills, resident as38

sistants can better assist LGBT students navigate the college experienceand can also learn skills to become effective peer counselors for LGBT students, as well as for non-LGBT students who may feel targeted for not fitting a preconceived mold. In addition to resident assistants, allies and Safe Zone peer counselors must be better trained to help identify more covert forms of homonegativity, while they are also supplied with adequate resources to educate all students regarding the effects that homonegativity has on the residence hall environment as a whole.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Given the heated political context within the nation at the time of this study and the evolving struggle that LGBT individuals face while fighting for equal rights and opportunities afforded to their heterosexual peers, colleges and universities are uniquely poised to become bastions of safety and inclusivity for LGBT students, if they choose to be. The evolving nature of homophobia into heterosexism and homonegativity has led to decreases in outright displays of negative bias, but more subtle seeds of discrimination and negative jibes have taken root in today’s residence hall environments. Both LGBT and non-LGBT students alike in this study described their living environments as homonegative, and these biases were negatively correlated to their overall perceptions of their residence hall climate. In particular, social support and group cohesiveness development were lower for all students. This is particularly interesting given the mission of most residential life programs to build strong communities for their residents to live in; but without social support and cohesiveness, community is not likely.

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
