The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 3 - 38

David J. Nguyen, Jodi L. Linley, Michael R. Woodford, Kristen A. Renn

Overall, descriptive findings
indicate that the awareness and
implementation of such policies
largely reside with students
attending Doctoral granting
institutions and least frequently
with students at two-year degree
granting institutions.

stitutions had implemented LGBTQ+ housing
policies. Doctoral degree (33.6%, n=181) granting institutions had the largest proportion of
responses reporting the existence of LGBTQ+
housing policies. Conversely, Associate's
degree (2.1%, n=1) granting institutions had
the smallest percentage of institutions with
LGBTQ+ housing policies.

DISCUSSION
This study contributes to the ongoing dialogue
across student service areas about the availability and awareness of nondiscrimination
policies that include sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression and LGBTQ+ inclusive housing policies. Taking a cross-sector
approach, this study demonstrates that students attending different types of institutions
have access to different policy environments.
Within housing specifically, the picture is one
of unevenness that may present differential
developmental opportunities to LGBTQ+ students depending on where they attend school.
Unevenness was also observed concerning
38

gender identity/expression antidiscrimination
policies. Overall, descriptive findings indicate that the awareness and implementation
of such policies largely reside with students
attending Doctoral degree granting institutions and least frequently with students at
two-year degree granting institutions. These
results align with prior research that suggests
LGBTQ+ students attending two-year institutions compared to other institutional types
have the fewest support mechanisms (Nguyen
et al., 2018). It is important to note that many
community colleges do not offer housing for
students, so the findings related to LGBTQ+
housing policy may be less relevant in that
sector, but the relative lack of knowledge of
antidiscrimination policies, namely gender
identity/expression inclusive policies at these
institutions, raises a concern.
The finding that more than 75% of all participants (n=693) indicated that their campus
had antidiscrimination policies for sexual orientation as a protected group is promising. Hong,
Woodford, Long, and Renn (2016) found that
the presence of sexual orientation antidiscrimination policies (assessed based on student's
awareness) were associated with students experiencing fewer verbal threats on campus.
Previous research largely concluded that
LGBTQ+ students found academic and social
environments chilly and unaffirming (Garvey &
Rankin, 2015; Greathouse et al., 2018; Tetreault
et al., 2013), but the presence of antidiscrimination policies may signal institutional support for
improved campus climates (Woodford, Kulick
et al., 2018). Still, one-quarter of students reported that their campuses did not have policies or that they did not know of such policies.
This finding suggests more work is needed by

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