Coming out in college residence halls: Negotiation, meaning making, challenges, supports

Journal of College Student Development, Nov/Dec 1999 by Evans, Nancy J, Broido, Ellen M

The distinctions made by our participants between coming out to oneself and coming out to others parallel the more recent definitions in the literature (e.g., Cohen & Savin-Williams, 1996). However, the distinctions between coming out to lesbian, gay, and bisexual others and coming out to heterosexual others were more clearly articulated by our participants than they were in the reviewed literature. Student affairs professionals should be aware of these distinctions and help students to understand and negotiate coming out to these various audiences, and the emotions and issues associated with each of them.

No literature that we reviewed discussed the distinct issues involved in coming out to roommates. As noted earlier, with the exception of Rhoads's (1994, 1995) work, no literature discusses the coming-out process on college campuses, an environment in which pairing of roommates who don't know each other is commonplace. Residence life professionals must be sensitive to the issues involved when lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals are placed with heterosexual roommates whom they do not know. They must also be aware of the possibility that closeted students live in the halls and may struggle to keep their identity hidden because of the homophobic comments or behaviors of their roommates. Active intervention and education concerning lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues is crucial. Interventions to address negative situations should be rapid, and room changes to remove students from hostile and physically dangerous situations should be facilitated quickly.

The literature does not address the issue of exactly how the coming-out process is negotiated. An implicit assumption in the literature is that coming out is a direct process of telling others that one is lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Our data indicate that coming out directly to others is more the exception than the rule. To identify lesbian, gay, and bisexual students who may need support, student affairs professionals should be made aware of the symbols used by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Being alert to the indirect ways in which students come out should be stressed in training programs for residence life and other student affairs professionals.

Variations in the ways and the extent to which individuals are out are not reflected in the stage models that predominate in the literature. These models assume a linear progression from coming out to oneself to coming out publicly. Our participants rarely experienced such a clear path of disclosure. Context, especially the level of perceived risk, seemed to greatly influence the extent to which students chose to be open about their identity. Many were very open with trusted friends but more closeted on their residence hall floors or in their work or academic settings. Some students widely disclosed their identities immediately after arriving on campus but once they had established themselves within the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community or in a particular friendship network, they pulled back from publicly identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual activists. Moving from less supportive to more supportive halls also influenced the extent to which some students chose to be out. Coming out, then, seems to be less of a stage or developmental process than an assessment of the environment. These findings support Harry's (1993) position that individuals adjust their level of self-disclosure based on the circumstances in which they find themselves. They also concur with Love's (1997, 1998) reports of the negative impact of a hostile environment on the extent to which lesbian, gay, and bisexual students chose to be visible on campus.