Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Editors’ Notes

2015; Wiley; Volume: 2015; Issue: 152 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/ss.20141

1536-0695

Dafina‐Lazarus Stewart, Kristen A. Renn, G. Blue Brazelton,

Race, History, and American Society

New Directions for Student ServicesVolume 2015, Issue 152 p. 1-10 Editors' NotesFree Access Editors' Notes Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, Dafina-Lazarus Stewart Bowling Green State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorKristen A. Renn, Kristen A. Renn Michigan State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorG. Blue Brazelton Editors, G. Blue Brazelton Editors Northern Michigan UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, Dafina-Lazarus Stewart Bowling Green State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorKristen A. Renn, Kristen A. Renn Michigan State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorG. Blue Brazelton Editors, G. Blue Brazelton Editors Northern Michigan UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 December 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20141Citations: 2AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Accompanying the trajectory of campus and community activism for visibility and civil rights, research on the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) college students has grown from a few small studies in the 1990s to a robust literature that supports educational policy and programs. A 2005 New Directions for Student Services sourcebook on gender identity and sexual orientation (Sanlo, 2005) brought together the latest scholarship of that time on identity development, campus climate and policies, transgender issues, and institutional features such as type, leadership, and campus resources. Since 2005 researchers have widened their lens to include, among other topics, LGBTQ student engagement and success, and they have focused their lens on specific topics such as transgender identity development and understanding intersections of sexual orientation and gender identity with other salient identities such as faith/religion/spirituality, race, social class, and ability. Studies about LGBTQ students in special-mission institutions (for example, historically Black colleges and universities, religiously affiliated institutions, or women's colleges) make additional contributions to this literature (Hart & Lester, 2011; Killelea McEntarfer, 2011; Marine, 2011; Means & Jaeger, 2013; Mobley & Johnson, 2015; Patton, 2011; Wentz & Wessel, 2011). Taken as a whole in the context of widespread changes in public attitudes and public policies related to LGBTQ people, this enlarged body of research on LGBTQ students in higher education merits a sourcebook such as this one that synthesizes knowledge and posits connections to student affairs practice. Notes About Terminology The landscape of terminology related to social identity characteristics and social group memberships is fluid, changing, and contested. Over time, scholars and community activists have challenged some of the language customarily used to refer to people whose identities and group memberships have lower status, visibility, and power in society. In particular, minority as a term for those groups with less status, visibility, and power fails to reflect the systematic and structural oppression in society that results in some groups having higher status, visibility, and power than others. In certain contexts, it can also be factually inaccurate; not all groups who have less status, visibility, and power are necessarily fewer in number than those groups who do. The coming "majority-minority" racial and ethnic composition of the United States and of some colleges and universities is one example. The lower status, visibility, and power of some groups compared to others are the result of a process of systematic and structural oppression. These social identities and social groups do not have less status, visibility, and power as a natural outcome of their differences. On the contrary, this outcome is a function of the myriad ways that social groups with valued ways of being in the world continue to accrue greater resources and visibility, maintain high status and power, and define what is normal, optimal, and neutral (Johnson, 2005). Therefore, in this volume, we follow the increasingly common practice of an interdisciplinary community of scholars (such as Benitez, 2010; Chase, Dowd, Pazich, & Bensimon, 2014; Gillborn, 2005; Godard, Mukjerjee, & Mukherjee, 2006; Patton, Harper, & Harris, 2015) to use the term minoritized as we discuss those whose sexuality and gender have been consigned to lower status, visibility, and power. Although this language helps frame the larger group of students we are discussing in this volume, students with minoritized sexual and gender identities, the terminology to describe those within this larger umbrella is also dynamic and contested as T.J. Jourian illustrates in the first chapter. Simply put, there is no universally accepted set of terms for describing students from minoritized sexual orientation or gender identity groups. In naming this volume, we chose to use lesbian, gay, and bisexual for minoritized sexual identities; transgender for minoritized gender identities; and queer, which includes minoritized identities in either category. In part because of its relative ease as a search term in the United States and many other nations, we use the abbreviation LGBTQ in the text we composed. But there are a host of other terms and abbreviations circulating in the literature and in educational practice that we might have chosen instead, among them asexual, pansexual, trans*, intersex, questioning, LGBT, LGBT+, LGBTQIA, and so forth. In acknowledgment of the diversity of terminology in use in the field and in the literature, we opted to have chapter authors select their own terms and give a brief explanation. Some readers will use the entire volume and thus encounter different terms across chapters, whereas others will use one or a few chapters, perhaps without noticing these differences. We encourage readers to develop their own views on terminology, based in their own epistemologies and ideological commitments. We also encourage readers to be alert to changing terminology in the field and to respect the terms that individuals use to describe their identities, even as those terms change over time and situation. Ecology of LGBTQ College Students We have organized this sourcebook around an ecological understanding of LGBTQ college students in the contexts of their lives on and off campus. We believe that locating individuals in the context of their environments, and different elements of the environment in interaction with the individual and with one another, is an effective way to understand how best to serve LGBTQ students in the evolving sociopolitical milieu of LGBTQ issues in the 21st century. An ecological perspective also enables us to integrate concepts that are in common across the many component groups that fall under the "LGBTQ" umbrella: lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender and gender queer individuals, racial and ethnic communities, faith communities, and other identities that individual LGBTQ people may hold. Rather than have a chapter on each group, we address these topics holistically, from a discussion of the evolving nature of sexual orientation and gender identity (Chapter One), to identities and institutional contexts (Chapter Two), to two key campus environments (Curricular/Classroom in Chapter Three; Cocurricular/Campus life in Chapter Four) and assessment and research (Chapter Five). Each chapter addresses multiple and intersecting identities of LGBTQ students in a range of institutional types. The main ecological perspective from which we draw is that of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1993; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), who proposed a model composed of four elements: Person, Process, Context, and Time (PPCT). Person involves demographics, experiences, and personal characteristics such as inclination to undertake increasingly complex tasks and propensity to engage with the environment. Developmental processes require increasingly complex interactions in the proximal environment, balanced with adequate buffers and supports, evoking the familiar challenge and support approach articulated by Nevitt Sanford (1962). These processes take place in the context of a student's life on and off campus. Renn and Arnold (2003) depicted a nested system of contexts spanning out from the microsystems in which a student has direct interaction, such as roommates, family, courses, lab groups, sports teams, workplace, and student clubs. Mesosystems are the next level out, in which students encounter interactions between and among microsystems, as when expectations from family contrast with or reinforce expectations of faculty, peers, coaches, and work supervisors. The exosystem represents a level in which the student is not present but that influences the student's development indirectly, for example, when faculty committees set curricula, policy makers define financial aid eligibility requirements, the vice president of student affairs approves gender-inclusive (also called gender-neutral) housing on campus, or parents experience workplace change that affects family income. Finally, the macrosystem contains larger sociohistorical forces and culture that influence developmental possibilities; for LGBTQ students, these forces include public policy related to civil rights (participation in the military, marriage, workplace and educational nondiscrimination), the healthcare system (availability and affordability of gender-related medical services), and attitudes toward gender and sexual orientation minorities. In Bronfenbrenner's (1993) model, Time acts in both incremental ways and as a larger demarcation of sociocultural change. The PPCT approach to developmental ecology provides a useful frame for understanding the experiences and identities of LGBTQ college students. Personal characteristics interact with each level of the context to influence subsequent development and experiences. We structured this sourcebook around the concepts of the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). The model takes into account multiple campus settings (microsystems) in which LGBTQ students live, learn, and develop. We purposefully include academic and cocurricular settings at the micro-, meso-, and exosystem levels. Institutional policy and faculty curriculum committees, for example, act primarily at the exosystem level to create changes in campus climate, classroom experiences, and available areas of study at the micro level. We urge readers to keep the totality of this ecosystem model—or some other person–environment model they may prefer—in mind when considering LGBTQ students in the contexts presented in the chapters. An ecological approach is evident particularly in Chapter Two, in which the authors present a new model of Minoritized Identities of Sexuality and Gender. Competency-Based, Appreciative Approach As important as the ecology model was to our conception of the sourcebook, taking a competency-based and appreciative approach to LGBTQ students was important to framing the content. We embrace the notion of a competency- or strengths-based approach, which assumes that LGBTQ students have resilience and resources they bring to bear as agents in constructing their college experiences and identities. Appreciative inquiry in higher education (see Cockell & McArthur-Blair, 2012) is a positive, coconstructive, potentially transformative approach to understanding phenomena in context. Cockell and McArthur-Blair (2012) quoted Marjorie Schiller describing appreciative inquiry as a "co-constructed practice informed by all those who work on creating the conditions for growth and change based upon seeking the positive core" (p. 2). Together, the focus on competence and appreciative inquiry form a positive, forward-looking foundation from which to understand the experiences, identities, and outcomes of LGBTQ students. Appreciative inquiry is at its core an approach that works in contrast to deficit models, which once dominated policy, practice, and research related to LGBTQ students. Dilley (2002), Marine (2011), and others have demonstrated a history of college officials treating nonheterosexual students as deviant, diseased, or at minimum in need of counseling to cope with what was assumed to be an unfortunate lot in life. Even the turn toward campus climate studies (for example, Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010) relies on demonstrating the hardships LGBTQ students face. To be clear, we believe that campus climate studies are critical elements of a comprehensive approach to understanding obstacles to educational equity, but they are not sufficient to describe the reality of the college experience of LGBTQ students. If 30% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents to the 2010 National Campus Climate Study (Rankin et al., 2010) reported feeling intimidated or bullied, that means that 70% did not. And what is going on in the (we hope) vast majority of time that LGBTQ students spend on campus when they are not being harassed? Just as literature about successful students from racial and ethnic groups minoritized in U.S. higher education (see Harper, 2010, 2013; Patton, 2009; Pérez, 2014) uses a competency-based, antideficit lens to make visible the identities, experiences, and perceptions of underrepresented students, in this sourcebook we aim to present a synthesis of literature on LGBTQ students that starts from a place of success and resilience. Such a perspective is consonant with an ecological approach, in that personal characteristics and environmental buffers and supports provide positive counterforces to negative campus climate and discriminatory incidents. This appreciative, competency-based approach is evident throughout the sourcebook. Multiple Identities and Intersections of Systems of Oppression It is impossible to bracket sexual orientation and gender identities to consider them apart from the whole student. A trend in the literature since the early 2000s has been to study students' multiple identities (see Abes, Jones & McEwen, 2007; Jones & Abes, 2013; Jones & McEwen, 2000), placing various aspects of identity in constant coconstruction with one another within the context of personal development and the environment. A subset of LGBTQ college student literature addresses specific combinations of sexual orientation or gender identity with, for example, race or religion. Abes (2012) explored intersections of identity for a Catholic lesbian student. Patton (2011) described identity, disclosure, and environment for gay and bisexual men at an historically Black college. Hayes, Chun-Kennedy, Edens, and Locke (2011) found that sexual and ethnic minority students experienced more stress than students who were in only one of these two minorities. Means and Jaeger (2013) employed "quare theory," which is based on intersections of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation, to analyze the experiences of Black gay male students at historically Black colleges and universities. These examples point to the ways that scholars are investigating multiple identities and intersections of systems of oppression. Work of this type continues and is likely to be a fruitful line of inquiry for some time. We recognize the value of these studies of specific combinations and increasingly sophisticated theoretical contributions to understanding multiple identities. Rather than present a chapter on LGBTQ students of color or LGBTQ students of particular religious faiths, we have integrated issues related to students' multiple identities into each chapter. This approach is consistent with our ecological frame, which defies parsing of identities and emphasizes the whole student interacting with and within various systems and levels of the environment. Our approach is also consistent with predominant thinking about multiple identities in contemporary higher education settings (see Jones & Abes, 2013). Intersections are a key feature of the discussion in Chapter One of the evolving nature of sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are key features in Chapter Five, which addresses research and assessment of diverse LGBTQ college students. It is important to recognize that students experience intersections of systems of oppression. An upper-middle class, cisgender Latina lesbian is subject to forces of classism, genderism, sexism, racism, and heterosexism, though as a member of privileged groups (upper-middle class, cisgender) she may not recognize the effects of this privilege in her life. Her working class, transgender White asexual roommate may perceive classism, genderism, and heterosexism, but not racism. Higher education is a context in which these—and other—systems of oppression play out and, in some cases, reinforce power differences among groups. Moreover, membership in privileged social groups alters how individuals experience and navigate their membership in marginalized social groups. Likewise, experiences with marginality influence the construction of privileged identities. This sourcebook focuses on identities, demographics, and institutional contexts in Chapter Two in order to portray the interactions among individuals and groups on campuses that exist within larger social structures of privilege and oppression. The authors include personal characteristics, such as ways of thinking and being (for example, in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator types), as well as institutional features such as size, control (public, private, denominational), and region. Macro features, such as immediate, repeated/recent, and historical time, create a context for the enactment of sociocultural influences on the experiences and identities of LGBTQ students. Chapters Three and Four describe academic and cocurricular/campus life environments, respectively. These are the two main on-campus ecosystems in which students encounter peers, faculty, and professional staff. Students also encounter human-built aspects of campus life (for example, policies, organizations, media, architecture, and physical artifacts) that may be variably supportive of them as LGBTQ people (see Renn, Woodford, Nicolazzo, & Brazelton, 2014). Chapter authors consider students' multiple identities operating within intersections of systems of oppression, an ecological approach to understanding academic and student life. International and Global Perspectives As higher education becomes increasingly global, it is important to understand LGBTQ students within international contexts. What does it mean for an LGBTQ international student to come from a country with more repressive—or more progressive—laws than the United States? What happens when they return home after graduation? What is it like for an LGBTQ student to select a study-abroad experience in a world that spans from openly embracing sexual orientation and gender identity diversity to maintaining death sentences for homosexual activity? How can educators prepare them for such an experience? What happens to campus climate when domestic students (who may themselves come from states with different degrees of civil rights for LGBTQ people and families with a range of social, political, and religious viewpoints) and international students who, because of the way that their home nation treats LGBTQ people, have never had a chance to meet an openly LGBTQ person or discuss LGBTQ rights share a campus? Or an international student's first consciousness of a same-gender-loving or trans* identity happens while they are studying in the United States? These questions—and others like them—circulate throughout the topics we address in this sourcebook. The sourcebook is U.S.-centric; that is, although we hope it will be useful to educators outside the United States, the literature on which it is based comes largely from studies of college students in the United States. We did, however, encourage chapter authors to include international issues and topics of globalization to the greatest extent possible. For example, Chapter One includes a discussion of how international students may understand and react to common terms related to gender identity and sexuality in theUnited States, and Chapter Four includes international contexts outside the classroom. Content of the Sourcebook In Chapter One, T.J. Jourian discusses the continued evolution of terminology, constructs, and ideologies that inform the language used by those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and same-gender loving, who may identify as queer, as well as those who are members of trans* communities. Jourian describes the historical evolution and present status of these debates and resolutions as critical guideposts for what the future might hold for upcoming generations of college students. As part of this dialogue, Jourian includes research on multiple identities and the intersections of privilege and oppression within individuals in these LGBTQ communities. In Chapter Two, Annemarie Vaccaro, E. I. Annie Russell, and Robert M. Koob situate their discussion in light of the paradox inherent in the coexistence of evolving fluidity of language with limitations created by limited, standardized bureaucratic categories used for institutional classifications (for example, sex or race). The authors discuss demographics of college students with minoritized identities of sexuality and gender (MIoSG) across institutional types in the United States. They offer a new ecological framework for understanding the intersections of sociopolitical systems, campus context, homeplace, self, meaning making processes, and time. Institutional/campus contexts, including uniqueness of type, history, mission, structure, policies, campus initiatives, and unstructured events/interactions are central aspects of this new model. They conclude by offering suggestions about how practitioners can utilize the model to create inclusive spaces in any institutional context. Jodi Linley and David Nguyen, in Chapter Three, consider the impact of climate on students, faculty, and staff. Through an examination of the representation and visibility of LGBTQ faculty and staff, and scholarly topics related to LGBTQ lives, they discuss how students experience and display identities in academic contexts. They emphasize the ways in which LGBTQ students use strategies of resilience, and describe best practices and competencies educators need to help students navigate and succeed. Debbie Bazarsky, Leslie Morrow, and Gabriel Javier present in Chapter Four the corollary to the preceding chapter. Their focus is on cocurricular and campus life environmental influences on LGBTQ students. They explore representation and visibility of LGBTQ models and mentors across student affairs and auxiliary services, as well as opportunities and challenges for LGBTQ-inclusive campus climates across campus areas (e.g., residence halls, off-campus residences, neighborhood engagement, health and wellness centers, recreation and athletics, career services). They also discuss issues of leadership, activism, advocacy, involvement, and engagement. A critical question this chapter addresses relates to whether support services for LGBTQ students exist and how they integrate with other identity-based resources and support. Sue Rankin and Jason Garvey discuss topics related to assessment and research with LGBTQ campus communities, connections to student success research, and the role of institutional research units in Chapter Five. Rankin and Garvey address a number of issues, including the need or desire to be able to count LGBTQ students in higher education; practices and policies related to asking for sexual orientation and gender identity on admission applications; the imperative not to conflate sexual orientation and gender identity; and the role of critical quantitative research and nonpositivist methodologies in research and assessment. The authors also revisit some of the language issues addressed earlier in the monograph (in most chapters but especially Chapter One) by considering what it means to ask questions about sexual orientation and gender identity and how to ask such questions. Rankin and Garvey consider the need intentionally to interrogate multiple identities and intersecting privileges and marginalities wherein LGBTQ students may experience prejudice and bias in communities presumed otherwise "safe" for them to express their identities. Finally, we as editors join again in the final chapter to consider the key ideas and points raised throughout the monograph and offer recommendations for research, policy, and practice. We locate this volume in the intellectual trajectory and history of educational practice vis-à-vis LGBTQ students. We provide final commentary on the state of research in the field, and make recommendations for future directions for research, theory, and educational practice. Biographies Dafina-Lazarus Stewart is associate professor of higher education and student affairs at Bowling Green State University. Kristen A. Renn is professor of higher, adult, and lifelong education at Michigan State University. G. Blue Brazelton is assistant professor of higher education and student affairs at Northern Michigan University. References Abes. E. S. (2012). Constructivist and intersectional interpretations of a lesbian college student's multiple social identities. Journal of Higher Education, 83(2), 186- 216. Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1– 22. Benitez, M. (2010). Resituating culture centers within a social justice framework: Is there room for examining whiteness? In L. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice (pp. 119– 136). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3– 44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology ( 6th ed., pp. 793– 828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Chase, M. M., Dowd, A. C., Pazich, L. B., & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Transfer equity for "minoritized" students: A critical policy analysis of seven states. Educational Policy, 28(5), 669– 717. Cockell, J., & McArthur-Blair, J. (2012). Appreciative inquiry in higher education: A transformative force. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Dilley, P. (2002). Queer man on campus: A history of non-heterosexual college men, 1945–2000. New York: Routledge. Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of White supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485– 505. Godard, B. J., Mukjerjee, A. P., & Mukherjee, A. (2006). Translating minoritized cultures: Issues of caste, class and gender. Postcolonial Text, 2(3), 1– 23. Harper, S. R. (2010). An anti-deficit achievement framework for research on students of color in STEM. In S. R. Harper & C. B. Newman (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research: No. 148. Students of color in STEM (pp. 63– 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harper, S. R. (2013). Am I my brother's teacher? Black undergraduates, racial socialization, and peer pedagogies in predominantly white postsecondary contexts. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 183– 211. Hart, J., & Lester, J. (2011). Starring students: Gender performance at a women's college. NASPA Journal about Women in Higher Education, 4(2), 193- 217. Hayes, J. A., Chun-Kennedy, C., Edens, A., & Locke, B. D. (2011). Do double minority students face double jeopardy? Testing minority stress theory. Journal of College Counseling, 14(2), 117– 126. Johnson, A. G. (2005). Privilege, power, and difference ( 2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405– 414. Killelea McEntarfer, H. (2011). "Not going away": Approaches used by students, faculty, and staff members to create gay–straight alliances at three religiously affiliated universities. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(4), 309– 331. Marine, S. (2011). Special issue: Stonewall's legacy—Bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender students in higher education. [ASHE Higher Education Report, 37(4)]. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Means, D. R., & Jaeger, A. J. (2013). Black in the rainbow:"Quaring" the black gay male student experience at historically Black universities. Journal of African American Males in Education, 4(2), 124– 140. Mobley, S. D., Jr., & Johnson, J. M. (2015). The role of HBCUs in addressing the unique needs of LGBT students. In. R. T. Palmer, C. R. Shorette, & M. Gasman (Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: No 170. Exploring diversity at historically black colleges and universities: Implications for policy and practice (pp. 79– 89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Patton, L. D. (2009). My sister's keeper: A qualitative examination of mentoring experiences among African American women in graduate and professional schools. Journal of Higher Education, 80(5), 510– 537. Patton, L. D. (2011). Perspectives on identity, disclosure, and the campus environment among African American gay and bisexual men at one historically black college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 77– 100. Patton, L. D., Harper, S. R., & Harris, J. (2015). Using critical race theory to (re)interpret widely studied topics related to U.S. higher education. In A. M. Martinez-Alemán, B. Pusser, & E. M. Bensimon (Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education: A practical introduction (pp. 193– 219). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Pérez, D. (2014). Exploring the nexus between community cultural wealth and the academic and social experiences of Latino male achievers at two predominantly White research universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(6), 747– 767. Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 state of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride. Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on peer culture. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 261– 291. Renn, K. A., Woodford, M., R., Nicolazzo, Z., & Brazelton, G. B. (2014, April). The role of personal resilience and environmental buffers in LGBTQ college student success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA. Sanford, N. (1962). The developmental status of the entering freshman. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college student (pp. 253– 282). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sanlo, R. L. (Ed.). (2005). New Directions for Student Services: No. 111. Gender identity and sexual orientation: Research, policy, and personal perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wentz, J., & Wessel, R. D. (2011). The intersection of gay and Christian identities on Christian college campuses. Journal of College and Character, 12(2), 1– 6. Citing Literature Volume2015, Issue152Special Issue: Gender and Sexual Diversity in U.S. Higher Education: Contexts and Opportunities for LGBTQ College StudentsWinter 2015Pages 1-10 ReferencesRelatedInformation