The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 3 - 100

Matthew Antonio Bosch

Colleagues either opted for a genderless term
such as partner or spouse, or a term like significant other which fails to recognize the fullness
of the relationship as a marriage. Neglecting the recognition of employees' loved ones
contributes to a professional culture where
LGBTQ+ people receive different treatment
than their heterosexual colleagues, treatment
which places them as disrespected, invalidated, and not valued.

Access to Residential Amenities
Access to mail, dining, and laundry facilities
also presented challenges to LGBTQ+ professionals with regards to advocating for their
live-in partners. Xavier (they/them) shared
their disappointment upon learning that their
husband's access to amenities was being called
into question:
I've also encountered some queerness issues
when I was hired and told that my husband
would have access to the residence halls, the
laundry, and would have a meal plan like I
did. He was a resident of the residence hall,
so it was required that he have access to that
and obviously free rent because he has to
live with me. Then, there was a changeover
in leadership, and we were asked why
someone's here that's not paying rent, not
contributing to the community.
Xavier felt that there was no way for their
husband to not be considered a resident or
contributor to the community, as the residence
hall was the place he lived and spent most of
his time each day, while also connecting with
students who lived there.
Forest shared their frustration around
mail delivery for his partner, as well as the
brush-off response which he termed as light
homophobia:
100

The mail services person refused to deliver
my partner's mail because they're like, "That
person doesn't work here, I'm not going to
deliver their mail." I called them up, and I
was like, "Yeah, that's my partner, I need
that to be delivered." I got some pushback,
definitely some light homophobia, I guess. I
talked to a couple of people on campus and
they were like, "Yeah, I've had that experience
too while talking about my same sex partner."
I went to our associate dean and she was like,
"Absolutely not going to be okay, we're going
to take care of this immediately." And she did.
She spoke up for me and it was like, "Yay, I
don't have to worry."
In discovering that other LGBTQ+ colleagues
felt similarly, Forest recognized that this style
of invalidation seemed to include daily or
weekly circumstances where LGBTQ+ relationships and identities were questioned or
invalidated. These common, ongoing invalidations of one's relationships, and therefore
identities, are collectively known as microaggressions (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000;
Sue, 2010). Challenging these microaggressions proved burdensome for participants but
also useful in advancing relationships across
colleagues.
In this instance, Forest found an advocate
in the associate dean, but not all LGBTQ+
professionals in housing feel comfortable and
confident enough to self-advocate by approaching people in power near the director or dean
level when difficult instances like these arise.
In the taking of risks to challenge microaggressions, people identifying as LGBTQ+ can help
authority figures understand and re-examine
issues in their organizations and within their
spheres of influence (Shelton & DelgadoRomero, 2013.)

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 3
