The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 156

Terrell L. Strayhorn • Taris G. Mullins

racist preferences (e.g., disparaging Black women). Overt racist acts, on the other hand, ranged from using the “n-word” to airing racist jokes, name-calling, and graffiti. Participants in the present study not only identified explicit examples of the racism they encountered in rHs, but also revealed how such experiences reduced their sense of belonging on campus, offended their racial identity, and threatened their sense of security in the rH. these findings expand our current understanding of what happens to gay students in college generally (d’augelli, 1989; renn, 2010) and to Bgmus in campus rHs specifically by exposing their encounters with racism, identifying the conditions under which such acts occur, and revealing the meaning that Bgmus make of these experiences. second, participants reported relatively frequent encounters with homophobia and gay oppression when interacting with their samerace male peers in campus rHs. enactments of homophobia ranged from benign avoidance to verbal or physical assault. comments offered by our respondents revealed three factors that seemed to limit the extent to and manner in which Bgmus interacted with their same-race male peers in rHs: homophobia, masculinity, and religion or religious beliefs. For instance, we shared perspectives from several who expressed difficulty engaging with other Black, presumably heterosexual, male residents or roommates who strongly and publicly professed their religious beliefs as a way of condemning Bgmus due to their sexual orientation. to date, this has not been reported in the literature on Black gay collegians; scholars have devoted prior attention to White glBt students and Black lesbians (e.g., Battle

Findings also suggest that promoting purposeful engagement among BGMUs and their peers can enhance their RH experiences .

& Bennett, 2000; Burns, 2000). there are important implications for practice that flow from this finding. third, campus rH structures and policies seem to perpetuate the heterosexist and homophobic environments that most student affairs professionals seek to transform, according to Bgmus. Participants in the present study delineated three ways in which this occurs. For instance, visitation policies talk about women as overnight guests, programming tends to situate gay men as objects of ridicule, and residents are often encouraged to resolve threatening conflicts on their own, without intermediaries. Without support and fearful of violent retaliation, a significant majority of Bgmus in the study chose not to confront their peers in rHs about offensive or threatening encounters. rather they often resigned themselves to silence and internalized negative feelings and frustrations. this is potentially problematic since similar strategies have been linked to diminished self-esteem, depression, and even suicide (Baumrind, 1995; icard, 1996; lebson, 2002). in the face of such daunting challenges, we were curious about how Bgmus contended with such tensions and persisted in the face of difficulty. Participants identified three major sources of support that enabled them to persevere in living situations that were, at times, dif-

156

The Journal of College and universiTy sTudenT housing

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1