(Re)Defining Queer and Trans* Student Retention and “Success” at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Abstract

Unfortunately, within the extant scholarship that has explored queer and trans* historically Black college and university (HBCU) students, the discourse(s) that deliberately center how they can be retained, persist, and ultimately graduate have largely been absent from the literature. Thus, this conceptual exploration offers strategies that HBCUs can and should utilize to ensure that their queer and trans* students persist and graduate. A practice-oriented model is also presented to serve as a guide for HBCU student affairs practioners, presidents, and faculty members to implement so that they may inculcate environments of “success” for their queer and trans* students. Ultimately, the “Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Engagement and Retention Practice Model” illustrates how HBCUs can engage their queer and trans* students during admissions or recruitment, matriculation, and even as alumni.

Keywords

HBCUs Black students queer trans*retention

Within higher education scholarship, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have been lauded for their exceptional ability to provide Black students with culturally engaging academic and social environments. Furthermore, HBCUs have and still do serve as the premiere arenas for championing, expanding, and solidifying educational opportunities for Black students across the African diaspora. “The weight of empirical evidence suggests that HBCUs foster nurturing, supportive, family-like environments that engender Black students’ success” (Strayhorn, 2014, p. 152). Presently, our nation’s HBCUs represent 3% of the nation’s colleges and universities, enroll just less than 24% of Black undergraduate collegians, and confer on average 26% of undergraduate degrees earned by Black students (Saunders & Nagle, 2018). This must be commended.

Another highly regarded vanguard among HBCU communities is that they purposefully center Blackness, racial uplift, and “empower the disempowered” (Strayhorn & Hirt, 2008, p. 209). Among these seemingly homogenous institutions, HBCU students do not represent one singular ideal of Blackness. Instead, at HBCUs, Blackness has been perpetually (re)imagined and given space to be performed in its infinite possibilities. But, which brands of Black identity are championed and often reinscribed within these institutional contexts? HBCU communities have been openly criticized for their tendency to engender socially conservative ideals. This conservatism is not relegated to a specific sector of HBCUs—private, public, church-affiliated, and non church-affiliated HBCUs have been at fault (Commodore, 2019). Although this conservatism is not enacted at all HBCUs, there are some that have policies and unwelcoming campus cultures that affect students who fall outside of a certain ideal that they may wish to uphold. This has greatly impacted the experiences of queer and trans* HBCU students.

The inherent irony in queer and trans* HBCU student discourse(s) is that these schools have always had some semblance of queer culture as argued by E. Patrick Johnson (2008) in his queer studies anthology titled Sweet Tea: Black Gay Men of the South. Furthermore, the etymology of the word queer derives from Scottish dialect circa 1500 meaning odd or peculiar. Considering this, the virtue of educating Black communities in the United States has been a foremost responsibility for HBCUs, and this ideal has been embedded in their missions since their beginnings. As these formidable institutions were being created to take on this challenging task, Whites still largely held the belief that the idea of Black Education was odd or peculiar. Thus, one could argue that HBCUs have been queer spaces for as long as they have existed. Whites did not believe that Blacks could be educated or were worthy of higher education; thus, HBCUs were queer(ed) and deemed subversive in a similar manner to how queer and trans* individuals have been (mis)treated in the broader societal context (Mobley, McNally, & Moore, 2019).

As such, this work seeks to center the critical need for HBCUs to ensure that their queer and trans* students are engaged holistically, persist, and graduate. Contemporarily, new questions must be brought to the forefront. What does success look like for queer and trans* HBCU students? How can they be retained? What practices can HBCU stakeholders enact to respond to the needs of their queer and trans* students? Within this conceptual exploration, we endeavor to respond to these questions and provide direction for key HBCU stakeholders including presidents, faculty, and administrators so that they may better engage their queer and trans* students during recruitment, matriculation, and even as alumni.

Within our recommendations and proposed model of practice, we have endeavored to be thoughtful as we unravel critical nuances pertaining to HBCU campus cultures. This exploration nor the recommendations we provide seek to chastise or point fingers at HBCU communities. Rather, the critique provided is rooted in love, not scorn or divisiveness, with the goal of continuing to move these conversations forward (Nash, 2017). With that in mind, it is important to stress that the “Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Engagement and Retention Practice Model” communally functions within HBCU campus culture(s). This model also emphasizes that HBCU environments are deeply driven by an unabashed centering and affirmation of Black racial identity and their missions that center an ethos of racial uplift. This intimate communal connection is vital to consider. It can be argued that Black communities and HBCUs are not separate entities, but very much so interrelated. So, in order for HBCU communities to continue to thrive, they must be intentional in evolving with the cultural shifts occurring in Black communities to ensure that they are serving the diverse needs of the Black communities who reside within and beyond their campus gates (Douglas, 2012; Mobley, 2017).

HBCU Student “Retention,” “Persistence,” and “Success”

When reviewing the broad spectrum of scholarship that has explored HBCU student “success,” there are several layers to the extant discussion(s). While not unique to HBCU studies, it must be noted that when attempting to uncover the “how” of what occurs within HBCU contexts regarding their unique abilities to stimulate cultures of success for Black students, the literature can be difficult to traverse. Popular, yet loaded higher education terms including “retention,” “persistence,” and “success” are used interchangeably with little distinction. This has the potential to lead to confusion for higher education scholars and student affairs practitioners who wish to uncover vital details pertaining to HBCU student achievement. Nevertheless, research has consistently shown the undeniable nature in how HBCUs unwaveringly confer record numbers of bachelors, masters, doctoral, and professional degrees to Black students annually when compared with historically White institutions (HWIs; Richards & Awokoya, 2012; Saunders & Nagle, 2018; Strayhorn, 2014).

Unfortunately, what is repeatedly left out of HBCU retention and persistence debates is that they habitually fail to acknowledge how these institutions are thriving even though they contend with inadequate resources due to a lack of substantial federal and state supports (Williams & Davis, 2019). So, “success” is occurring at HBCUs contrary to deceptive allegations that accentuate the negative (e.g., low graduation rates), while dismissing the positive (e.g., Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) preparation; Strayhorn, 2014). The weight of empirical evidence asserts that the success of Black HBCU students is due to their supportive and nurturing environments (Jett, 2013; Palmer & Gasman, 2008), ability to foster positive psychosocial adjustment (Reeder & Schmitt, 2013; Shorette & Palmer, 2015), and their acumen for honing critical thinking skills and intellectual development among their students (Goings, 2016). However, these discourses largely focus on gendered explorations and the comparison of Black students at HWIs versus HBCUs.

Previous scholarship argues that HBCUs have been more effective than HWIs at promoting and achieving student success for Black collegians (Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002; Winkle-Wagner & McCoy, 2018). This work largely maintains that because HBCUs center and celebrate Blackness that this heavily contributes to Black student success, which is in stark contrast to HWIs (Allen & Jewell, 2002; Kim, 2002). In fact, Fries-Britt and Turner (2002) contended that Black students do not depart higher education altogether, rather, they often leave HWIs to attend HBCUs and cite hostile academic and social factors (e.g., hypervisibility, chilly campus climates, onliness, etc.) as reasons for transfer which overwhelmingly suggests that these particular dynamics are key influences for student retention. Yet, as Palmer and Walker (2019) argue, while HBCU–HWI comparative analyses concerning Black student success have been popular in higher education research, this work has unintentionally reified White supremacy by setting Whiteness as a normative yardstick for Black HBCU students to be measured against. This is not to say that comparative studies have not been useful, but, there is an equally compelling reason why researchers must be more intentional about exploring Black HBCU students without feeling the need to compare aspects of their experiences to their same-race peers at HWIs ( Palmer & Walker, 2019).

Another distinction within the scholarship pertaining to HBCU student retention and persistence is that it is highly gendered in nature. Previous studies are situated into distinct silos on how Black men and women achieve success within HBCU environments. Extremes are also present where female HBCU students are presented as being highly successful and in the majority, and Black males are in the minority and underserved thus contributing to the “Black male crisis” narrative that is highly present in P-20 explorations. Contemporary scholarship has revealed the manner in which female HBCU students have experienced situations that place them in encounters that have impeded their well-being even though they may be in the majority. A veil of conservatism manifests in HBCU cultures in the form of patriarchal ideals that convey strong signals to Black women that they must perform in particular manners if they wish to attain and achieve success (Decker, 2014; Johnson, 2017). Due to current and historical ties to the Black church, HBCU environments embody traditionalist mores concerning gender roles and sexuality—these customs disproportionally impact Black women at HBCUs. While Black women at HBCUs may outperform their male counterparts academically, socially they are held to particular standards and are unfairly “policed” on how they must “show up” in these contexts. Policies directed toward women at HBCUs emphasize conservative attire, abstinence, and other practices associated with a doctrine of chastity and modesty (Bonner, 2002; Kennedy, 2012). These values most definitely influence the retention of Black women at HBCUs, although the numbers may state otherwise. Female HBCU undergraduates may outnumber their male counterparts and even graduate at higher rates (Bond, 2011), but, there are other aspects of their experiences that the literature alludes to that look beyond enrollment numbers and graduation rates and convey an incongruence between what graduation statistics may convey and the narratives from their lived experiences.

On the other extreme, scholars focusing on Black male HBCU student success underscore their underrepresentation on these campuses and what this means for retention conversations (Harper, Carini, Bridges, & Hayek, 2004). The findings from previous studies on Black male HBCU student success are rather confounding. Much of this work asserts that Black male HBCU students struggle academically, socially, and have difficulty establishing meaningful relationships with the campus constituencies ( Palmer & Young, 2009). Is this true? Even amidst low Black male HBCU enrollments, previous studies have made clear that Black men are privileged in certain HBCU arenas (e.g., social interactions, dating, and student leadership opportunities).

At HBCUs, Black male students who embody brands of masculinities that embrace “traditional” gender roles that are ridden with performances that breed toxic masculinity are embraced and rewarded. Unfortunately, as Harris (2010) expresses, hegemonic masculinities (e.g., White, heterosexual, and able-bodied) are valued within higher education spaces above others that may be deemed feminine, raced, or poor/low-income. Taken together, both bodies of work allude to what has been unaddressed in the literature thus far. Again, where are the exploration(s) featuring how queer and trans* HBCU students can both be liberated and attain the “success” that has been mulled over for generations? Also, because this research has been highly gendered in nature, where do trans* students fit in this discourse? Vital perspectives have been left out due to a stark gender binary being present in how “success” has been normed on gender binary extremes. Thus, it is vital moving forward that gender constructs are made pliable in order for innovative change to occur on HBCU campuses.

Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Experiences

There is a bourgeoning sector of studies that have explored queer HBCU students. This literature largely highlights how they navigate myriad marginalized identities during their time on HBCU campuses. The overwhelming majority of HBCU scholarship pertaining to queer HBCU students highlights the experiences of gay (Carter, 2013; Means & Jaeger, 2013; Strayhorn & Scott, 2012) and lesbian-identified students (Patton & Simmons, 2008), with a few studies centering the experiences of gender-nonconforming (GNC) HBCU students (Mobley & Johnson, 2019; Patton, 2014). Studies that deliberately underscore trans* HBCU student experiences are virtually nonexistent. This is the current landscape to draw from.

Previous studies suggest that Black gay students choose to attend HBCUs because they desire a college experience that values and centers their Black identity (Squire & Mobley, 2015). However, there is a tension present. HBCUs can be spaces where Black students’ sexual, racial, and gender identities are in conflict with their institutional cultures. Previous scholars have noted, however, that Black queer students still choose HBCUs knowing that their queer identities may not be embraced (Kirby, 2011; Lewis & Ericksen, 2016). With regard to lesbian-identified HBCU students, Patton and Simmons (2008) described the feeling of “sister/outsider” for the Black women in their study who identified as a lesbian. Participants felt that their Black identity was accepted while their lesbian identity was challenged and often relegated to the margins of their campus culture(s).

Another major theme within this body of work highlights how queer HBCU students experience marginalization due to them openly expressing their queer identities. Several studies reported queer HBCU students suffering penalty and isolation due to their being “out” during their college years (Carter, 2013; Ford, 2015; Means & Jaeger, 2013). While some of these students believed that being out created a toxic experience for them socially and placed a strain on their peer relationships (Washington & Wall, 2010) other students found that their queer identities restricted them from pursuing leadership activities if they chose to be “out” (Patton, 2011). What is also intriguing is that some gay students embodied homophobic “performances” as a strategy to be accepted socially (Ford, 2015; Strayhorn & Scott, 2012). These studies also highlighted how gay and lesbian students in particular have faced challenges in finding facets of campus life that affirm both their racial or ethnic identities and sexual or gender identities (Lenning, 2017).

A final theme in the literature notes the pervasive harassment, marginalization, and homophobia that queer HBCU students endure. Strayhorn and Scott (2012) reported that the Black gay men in their study had frequent encounters with homophobia via verbal insults—often from Black male peers and professors. Similarly, during Ford’s (2015) investigation of the experiences of Black gay male HBCU alumni, participants who were perceived as masculine reported lower levels of harassment, while alumni who displayed effeminate behavior or were GNC-experienced intense instances of homophobia. Within these studies, it was evident that negative attitudes toward Black gay and lesbian students derived from socialization processes that censure or denounce members of sexually minoritized populations. As Harper & Gasman (2008) asserted in their study on conservatism, HBCUs are often overwhelmingly heterosexual spaces. As such, HBCU cultures perpetuate ideals laden with compulsory heterosexuality and expect their students to perform in specific manners during their attendance and even after graduation.

Overall, this scholarship has served a critical need as it has both asserted the relevance of queer HBCU student experiences and the need for continuous research. However, this work must be extended to now illustrate how queer and trans* HBCU students can be retained, persist, and graduate. While this body of work has done a tremendous job of centering how queer HBCU students have navigated these contexts, we use these explorations to inform our practice-based model and show how HBCUs can directly confront and respond to the issues that queer and trans* HBCU students are currently facing that impact their retention and persistence.

Conceptual Lenses for Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Retention

To better understand the factors that affect the retention of queer and trans* HBCU students, we utilize the “politics of respectability” and “anti-Blackness” as conceptual frames to synthesize how HBCUs have reinforced policies and cultivated cultures that have impeded or disrupted how queer and trans* students are able to be retained or persist within HBCU environments.

The Politics of Respectability

Queer and trans* students can be, at times overlooked, neglected, and rendered invisible within HBCU communities (Mobley & Johnson, 2015, 2019). The complexities of their sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression(s) often present as an affront to Black “respectability politics” and disrupt widely accepted notions of conservatism and “decency” within Black communities. What began as strategic interventions that were widely imposed by Black elites under the guise of “racial uplift” to rectify the “bad” traits of poor Blacks are still ever-present within Black education settings ( Harris, 2014). First theorized by Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham (1993), the politics of respectability are oppositional strategies that are imposed by Black communities to counter the systemic racism they endure by “policing” particular types of Blackness, with the goal of making them “safe” within White America and palatable to White communities. Within Higginbotham’s arguments there is acknowledgement that the underlying essence of Black reform that is embedded within these values fails to acknowledge that African Americans are “simultaneously socially located within the intersections of multiple systems of oppression based on gender, sex, and sexual orientation” (Patton, 2014, p. 730).

The politics of respectability were not enacted to be outright oppressive or harmful in nature. On the contrary, the goal of these mores was to exonerate Black communities from perpetually being deemed as uneducated, uncivilized, and lacking proper decorum. However, this line of thinking became a “double-edged sword” that resulted in unintended consequences for Black communities. By adopting this ideology Black communities then adopted and affirmed intraracial tensions that then bred patriarchy, heteronormativity, and classism, while demonizing identities, orientations, and experiences that do not reinforce notions surrounding what is a “good” Black person.

These standards ultimately exclude any member of a Black community who pose a challenge to the most puritanical of ideals—those who do not practice Christianity, have sexual indiscretions, and queer and trans* individuals (Pattillo, 2007; White, 2001). Many Black communities are hostile toward queerness and transness and fear those who reside in these communities weaken the race (Patton, 2014). There are extremes present within this virulent thinking that present the notion that there is no way for Blackness and queerness to coexist because queerness has been deemed Eurocentric. This is highly problematic.

Within this work, we extend and show how the politics of respectability have been and are ever present within many HBCU contexts and have the power to disrupt queer and trans* student retention. As Higginbotham (1993) considered their formidable presence within the Black church, conservatism and respectability continue to be executed at HBCUs. While HBCUs are deeply grounded in an ethos of racial uplift and are beholden to service via Black student achievement by providing success-oriented environments, culturally supportive faculty, administrative, and staff support—their remains a formidable undercurrent of conservatism within these campus cultures (Njoku, Butler, & Beatty, 2017). HBCUs often send mixed messages to their queer and trans* students. These students are often placed directly in the center of discourses that wrongly dictate what is morally “right” or “wrong,” thus making them feel that they are a distraction, their gender expression and gender identity are on the fringe, and they should be both unseen and unheard by faculty members, their peers, and administrators. During their attempts to instill respectability, many HBCUs have adopted policies and practices that have alienated their queer and trans* students, which have disrupted how and if they are able to persist and be retained.

Anti-Blackness Within HBCU Contexts

As a concept, Anti-Blackness grapples with how Black humanity is invalidated and relegated to the margins of society. Dumas and Ross (2016) assert that “antiblackness refers to a broader antagonistic relationship between Blackness and (the possibility of) humanity” (p. 429). Anti-Blackness begins with the stance that in order to discuss the condition of being Black in America that there must be a recognition of slavery in the United States.

Slavery marks the ontological position of Black people. Slavery is how Black existence is imagined and enacted upon, and how non-Black people—and particularly whites—assert their right to the consumption, destruction, and/or simple dismissal of the Black. (Dumas, 2016, p.13)

Building upon this thought, Hartman (2007) stresses that Blacks who reside in the United States are living in “the afterlife of slavery” (p. 6) and are forced to reckon with systemic forces that are by-products of the antebellum period. This includes the disdain for Black lives that derived from an intrinsic political arithmetic enacted in the U.S. centuries ago due to chattel slavery. In tandem with the aforementioned, anti-Blackness also brings to light that what is “Black” is at the mercy of White supremacy within the United States, which constructs the very essence of Black life as a threat or “problem” to be corrected, silenced, or erased all together (Dumas, 2016).

When relating Anti-Blackness to HBCU contexts, we (re)conceptualize this concept outside of a Black–White paradigm and (re)imagine it intraracially within Black communities. Higher education scholars largely situate instances of anti-Blackness and Black degradation within a Black–White paradigm—particularly as it pertains to the presence of White supremacy within HWIs. Scholars have grappled with how U.S. colleges and universities must atone for and recognize how they knowingly participate in and perpetuate the ills of systemic racism. What is rarely discussed is how the roots of Black education have been thoroughly entrenched in the lessons and rules of White supremacy. Unfortunately, “Whiteness” is present and enacted in overt and covert manners on HBCU campuses (Mobley, Solomon, Johnson, & Reynolds, forthcoming).

HBCU scholarship exploring how anti-Blackness effects these institutions largely asserts how they have been (mis)treated in the broader societal context and unfairly conferred a “lesser than” status (Patton, 2016). Furthermore, as Williams, Burt, Clay, and Bridges (2019) explain, “anti-Blackness illuminates the structural-historical forces that have, over time, maligned HBCUs in an attempt to erase them from American higher education” (p. 562). What this body of work has brought to light is certainly true. However, discussion must be extended to reveal how instances of anti-Blackness manifest within HBCU contexts. This is an uncomfortable, but necessary conversation that must be had as it relates to how Black queer and trans* students experience HBCU environments.

A historical understanding lends a much needed foundation for conversations broaching the ancestry of anti-Blackness on HBCU campuses. “During their establishments, many HBCUs were deemed as institutions to not only educate newly freed slaves, but to instill values of White morality” (Nguyen, Samayoa, Gasman, & Mobley, 2018, p. 8). To many of the early White stakeholders that played major roles in establishing HBCUs, to them, Blacks had only been slaves, thus, they were uncivilized, savage, and a threat to American society. Racism under the guise of “benevolence” during the formation of HBCUs was enforced by inflicting conservative and religious ideals that still continue to impact the cultures and ethos’ of HBCU campuses. As Commodore (2019) then contends, “the question is, ‘Why would Black Americans, and HBCUs specifically, continue to operate with seemingly outdated and anti-Black practices?’” (p. 2). The answer is complex. Some anti-Black practices are now veiled on HBCU campuses as traditions and polices that directly impact their queer and trans* students (e.g., The Morehouse College Appropriate Attire Policy and the now defunct Spelman College White Dress Tradition). Much of the Eurocentric ideology that eventually evolved into conservative Black ideals meant to “fix” Black individuals heavily affects the realities that queer and trans* HBCU students continue to face on these campuses.

Together, as concepts, the “Politics of Respectability” and “anti-Blackness” were used to develop a practice-based model that conveys the issues each concept uncovers as they relate to queer and trans* HBCU student retention. These concepts work in tandem to illuminate how the “Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Engagement and Retention Practice Model” can be used on HBCU campuses to overcome the issues that derive from respectability politics and instances of anti-Blackness on HBCU campuses. In considering how both concepts inform the proposed model, it is important to note that this framing is not intended to suggest that Black spaces are the epicenter for Black queer and trans* discrimination. Rather, these concepts provide an entry way to aptly problematize how conservatism manifests at HBCUs.

Making A Case for the “Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Engagement and Retention Practice Model”

Queer and trans* HBCU students navigate the intersections of their myriad oppressed identities all while battling stereotypes, evading harm, and the potential to be relegated to the margins of their campuses (Mobley & Johnson, 2015, 2019). Unfortunately, these collegians also often endure the aforementioned circumstances in silence. Black queer and trans* HBCU students are also forced to reconcile the fallacious belief that Blackness and queerness are incongruent. In the midst of these factors, queer and trans* HBCU students also exist in educational spaces that have been prominent agents of imparting particular ideologies to their students—especially as it pertains to their socialization around Black sexuality, gender, and gender identity (Grundy, 2012; Johnson, 2017). But, these schools ultimately have the power (should they choose to enact it) to liberate Blackness, queerness, and transness from being looked upon as separate entities as they have been key stakeholders in the creation of what is and can be deemed as “Black” (Bey, 2017).

Our hope is that this model will be utilized in HBCU academic and student affairs realms. This model actively considers the (a) complex histories and missions of HBCU contexts, (b) extant literature on HBCU student retention and persistence, (c) emergent research exploring queer HBCU student experiences writ large, (d) current “best” practices and interventions that HBCUs have implemented to inculcate holistic student development, and (e) “The Politics of Respectability” and “Anti-Blackness.”

As with any proposed model, there are several factors at play. We must state again that HBCUs are not a monolith. Nor are we asserting that this particular lens will be a “one size fits all” answer to what is occurring on HBCU campuses regarding this particular student community. Also, to move forward in our conceptualization and pretend that HBCUs are homogenous or even “perfect” would mean that we are endeavoring to suspend reality, and this would go against the objectives of our proposed practice-based concept (Arroyo & Gasman, 2014). Highlighting what is currently being done in silos among these institutions and directly centering a potential tool that could be of use at HBCUs is our foremost goal. In our conceptualization, Figure 1 depicts the “Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Engagement and Retention Practice Model.” The following sections further explain its components and how they have and could be used on HBCU campuses to guide practice.

Figure 1.

Queer and trans* HBCU student engagement and retention practice model. Note that implementing this model in its entirety or even in part(s) would yield tremendous results for queer and trans* HBCU students. HBCU = historically Black college and university.

(Re)Defining Queer and Trans* Student HBCU Student Success and Retention

If HBCUs were to stand at the fore of creating and (re)forming policies and engaging practice(s) for Black queer and trans* students, it would undoubtedly impact higher education, Black communities, and society at large (Mobley & Johnson, 2015). The “Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Engagement and Retention Practice Model” is a tool to prompt dialogue and change in HBCU campuses regarding how they consider Blackness, queerness, and transness, and how these identities influence persistence and retention. This model starts with how HBCUs can engage queer and trans* students during their recruitment and admissions processes and also addresses academic and out-of-classroom experience(s), and even alumni engagement.

Enrollment Management

Queer and trans* HBCU student engagement should start during the admissions and recruitment phases. Recently, HBCUs have implemented admissions policies that embrace diverse queer communities. Trans* admissions policies are now in place at each of the traditionally single sex HBCUs. These policies are quite groundbreaking, especially considering that each of these institutions has branded specific “standards” on Black masculinity or femininity. Bennett College (NC), Morehouse College (GA), and Spelman College (GA) are among few colleges in the South that have adopted explicit admissions procedures for trans* applicants (Mobley et al., 2019). These policies are important first steps. However, much more can be done.

In tandem with these admissions policies, HBCUs can also be more purposeful during their admissions and recruitment processes. Squire and Mobley (2015) recommend in their study, that is one of few exploring how Black queer students decide to attend HBCUs that there are several measures that HBCU enrollment management offices should implement. They advocate for (a) recruiting and employing queer and trans* students for campus visit days, open houses, and new student orientation to give tours and offer peer advising support; (b) overt promotion of queer and trans* student services during housing, student life, and financial aid presentations; and (c) to participate in college fairs geared directly toward queer and trans* high-school students.

HBCUs should also utilize new student orientation as a prime opportunity to set the tone for inclusivity, respect, and understanding of queer and trans* topics. Most schools use orientation to review the institution’s mission and values, set academic expectations, and review relevant policies and procedures. An enhanced orientation model with a focus on queer and trans* topics would build a sense of acceptance, belonging and community from the onset on these campuses. This programming would also reinforce to queer and trans* HBCU students that they are valued and supported.

Academic/Classroom Experience(s)

Previous studies have found that queer and trans* HBCU students often experience pedagogical violence due to be being textually erased in the available curricula (Fulford & Wymer, 2019). Thus, HBCUs must make Black queer and trans* topics visible in the classroom. HBCU faculty have the opportunity to create inclusive educational spaces by including scholarship outside of the heteronormative pedagogy that currently pervades their curricula (Mobley & Johnson, 2015). At this time, there are no HBCUs that offer queer or trans* studies as an academic major. However, Bowie State University (MD), Howard University (DC), Morehouse College (GA), and Spelman College (GA) have and currently offer queer studies courses. This is substantial progress, but, more HBCUs should look into diversifying their curricula. Furthermore, if HBCU faculty were to affirm their students’ identities in the classroom through pronoun usage, this practice would speak volumes and make these academic spaces more accessible for queer and trans* students. Also, revisiting expectations for how gender is performed in classroom spaces would also be highly beneficial in creating inclusive classroom environments. For instance, during required classroom presentations instead of mandating particular attire (e.g., women should wear dresses or skirts and men must wear suits), allowing students to “show up” authentically and not be forced to “fit” into a gender binary would be a liberatory pedagogical tool. Queer and trans* HBCU students should also be able to “see” themselves in their professors as well. If HBCUs were to promote cultures where their faculty members could be “out” and serve as “possibility models” for their students, this would lead to vital reciprocal mentorship relationships. These pedagogical acts should not have to be carried out in a clandestine nature.

Instituting concerted partnerships and programing across academic and students affairs would also lend greatly to queer and trans* retention efforts at HBCUs. For instance, academic support units could offer tutoring services in HBCU queer resource centers. HBCUs also currently offer “Black Male Initiative” programs and “Black Women Success” groups for the sole purpose of retention. Similar interventions geared toward queer and trans* HBCU students would be groundbreaking. Finally, professional development, training, and providing opportunities for faculty to attend relevant conferences regarding queer and trans* issues would equip HBCU faculty in contributing to fostering safe and affirming campus communities. Investment in annual and consistent training so university faculty could remain knowledgeable of the latest trends in language, culture, and best practices for queer and trans* students could improve classroom climates for these students as they are primary points of contact and must be able to accommodate all students.

Out of Classroom Experiences

The manner in which queer and trans* students experience their respective HBCU communities outside of the classroom directly impact how they can be retained and persist in myriad ways. Our model shows how HBCUS have been actively engaging in queer and trans* student-centered interventions or practices and what they can be doing to “do” this work. Utilizing queer or ally student organizations, campus programming offerings, holistic student health services, and gender inclusivity initiatives can create inclusive environments for queer and trans* HBCU students to thrive, persist, and be retained.

Queer and Trans* or Ally Student Organizations

The establishment of queer and trans* or ally student organizations have been critical first steps in assuring that queer and trans* HBCU students have a voice on these campuses. These organizations have been found to be vital spaces for queer and trans* students of color to fortify support and community (Garvey, Mobley, Summerville, & Moore, 2019). Currently, 32% of HBCUs now have recognized organizations (Mobley & Johnson, 2019), which is a significant increase from the reported 21% that were in existence on HBCU campuses in 2013 (Gasman, 2013). These student organizations have provided these students the opportunity to feel a sense of belonging that fosters student retention and success (Mobley & Johnson, 2015). While these groups are of vital importance, queer and trans* students who are not out may not choose to engage these co-curricular spaces due to the “politics” of what it may mean to be “out” at an HBCU (Garvey et al., 2019). Thus, HBCU contexts must continue to evolve and establish more venues for queer and trans* students who are and are not out to be able to forge community.

Embracing Gender Inclusive Practices

Today, there are a growing number of HBCUs instituting gender-inclusive interventions on their campuses. Of note, Virginia State University (VA) is the first HBCU in Virginia to have gender inclusive restrooms on campus. Also, North Carolina A&T (NC) recently opened a new student center in the fall of 2018 and during planning they were quite intentional in making sure that this space included gender inclusive restrooms. HBCUs have also begun removing gender binary barriers to improve residential life for their queer and trans* students. Trans* and GNC students have faced significant trauma in their residential life experiences due to gendered housing policies that enforce and separate students based on gender binary designations (Nicolazzo, Marine, & Wagner, 2018). Currently, Savannah State University (GA), Johnson C. Smith University (NC), Norfolk State University (VA), North Carolina Central University (NC), Howard University (DC), and Morgan State University (MD) have gender-inclusive housing (GIH) options. While GIH options are best practices, these initiatives must be joined with consistent professional development for residence life professionals who are in daily contact with students. Adequate staff training on trans* issues are essential to the enactment of GIH housing options. GIH housing options should also be offered on an individual basis, and other alternatives including gender-neutral and single occupancy choices should also be considered (Beemyn, Curtis, Davis, & Tubbs, 2005). Finally, HBCUs should also update residence life forms to include options outside of gender binary markers to allow students to specify a gender label of their choice.

Holistic Queer and Trans*-Centered Student Health Services

Access to quality gender and sexuality affirming health care is critical for the safety, well-being, and on-going academic progress for queer and trans* students. Being aware of and implementing health-care services for these students should be a vital and foremost priority for HBCU student affairs and health center professionals (Nguyen et al., 2018). An encouraging development is that there are HBCUs that have expanded health services for their vulnerable populations. Thus far, many of these initiatives have expanded visibility regarding sexual health, awareness, and prevention on these campuses. In February 2019, Morehouse College (GA) announced that it would begin to offer preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP)¹ to students through funding and training from Kaiser Permanente of Georgia and Fulton County (GA). PrEP has been designated as a useful prevention tool against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections (Calabrese, Krakower, & Mayer, 2017). Furthermore, in 2018, the Human Rights Campaign’s Historically Black College and Universities Program released a policy guide to offer strategies for HBCU stakeholders on how they could become leaders in HIV education, prevention, treatment, and care for their students. Both of these initiatives recognize how health disparities uniquely impact queer and trans* HBCU students.

While sexual health concerns are quite salient for Black queer and trans* HBCU students, they are not the only issues they face. Investment in mental health and well-being efforts for this student population would also be extremely valuable in retention efforts. Addressing how mental health impacts HBCU student success is highly important in contemporary retention discourses (Walker, 2015). Hiring counselors who are well versed in matters affecting queer and trans* communities and even infusing topics that center their experiences in wider campus conversations and programming about mental health and well-being would be highly beneficial for HBCU communities.

Annual Trainings for Student Affairs Professionals

Ongoing trainings and educational opportunities would provide a forum for HBCU student affairs practioners to better understand how to support their queer and trans* students. These forums would provide a medium for HBCU student affairs professionals to have much needed conversations about gender, gender identity, and sexuality. Currently, Fayetteville State University (NC) has made these trainings a part of its Safe Zone program offerings. This program routinely trains specific departments and divisions on queer and trans*-centered content tailored for specific student affairs functional areas. Campus police and security, athletics, student health, and enrollment management have received on-going training opportunities that are directly applicable to their roles on campus. In engaging this type of professional development, HBCU student affairs divisions would be demonstrating their commitment to affording supporting and nurturing environments for all of their students.

Queer and Trans* Student-Centered Programs

Today, there are five HBCUs that have queer and trans* resource centers dedicated to providing support, resources, and advocacy for this student population—Bowie State University (MD; 2012); North Carolina Central University (NC; 2014); Fayetteville State University (NC; 2015); University of the District of Columbia (DC; 2018); and Prairie View A&M University (TX; 2019). These centers have provided the expertise necessary for their campuses to become more aware of queer and trans* issues, while also providing much needed advocacy for these students (Mobley & Johnson, 2015). These campus spaces have also been key in providing programming that celebrate queer and trans* communities while also educating entire campuses about the issues these students face. For HBCUs that have not yet established these spaces on their campuses, it will be vital for their student affairs practitioners to take up the mantle and offer programming that purposefully underscores queer and trans* interests. For instance, in the spring of 2018, Dillard University (LA) hosted a “Sex Week” to raise awareness and spark dialogue on queer topics, sexuality, gender identity, and sexual health. Alabama State University’s (AL) queer and trans* student organization “Amplified” sponsored programs in Fall 2019 that focused on topics including creating safe environments for their queer and trans* students, bullying, have even spearheaded Ally or Safezone training for students, faculty, and staff members. Also, Johnson C. Smith University (NC) has utilized community partnerships to engage queer and trans* issues. In 2019, they were a sponsor for Charlotte, NC Black Pride events and hosted the Town Hall Community event on their campus. Community partnerships are vital enterprises that HBCUs can and should engage to ensure the viability and perpetuity of centering queer and trans* communities on their campuses (Mobley & Johnson, 2015). These examples convey how HBCU student affairs divisions without queer and trans* resource centers can feature signature programming so these students can have options to feel affirmed and included in their broader campus landscapes.

Queer and Trans* HBCU Alumni Engagement

Institutions continue to face challenges to create meaningful connections with alumni who felt marginalized and invisible while they were students (Garvey & Drezner, 2016). These challenges prevent HBCUs from reaching robust fundraising goals. However, in 2015, Howard University (DC) launched “The Lavender Fund,” a two-pronged initiative aimed at mobilizing Howard’s queer and trans* alumni through fundraising and supporting current queer students through scholarships and programmatic events. This intervention ultimately seeks to address the pathology of homophobia on its campus in the form of learning, research, and implementing services for queer and trans* students. To date, Howard is the first HBCU to actively engage its queer alumni in a philanthropic manner. This is a huge development as queer and trans* alumni have largely been ignored by colleges and universities as a viable and relevant group that is worthy of engagement (Garvey & Drezner, 2013). It appears that Howard is consciously placing their queer and trans* constituents on a national platform and courageously standing in the face of homophobia. They are attempting to engage this particular sect of students and alumni so that a culture of inclusion can be established and hopefully emulated in other HBCU communities. If other HBCUs were to mirror this initiative and also actively use their queer and trans* alumni in aiding in recruitment and actively mentoring current students, this would yield tremendous results. Representation is a key. Actively engaging queer and trans* HBCU alumni to come back to their respective campuses to be “present” and engage would not only show that they care and are committed to these alumni, but this type of engagement would also provide “possibility models” for their current students as well.

Moving Forward

The “Queer and Trans* HBCU Student Engagement and Retention Practice Model” is the first tool of its kind calling for a multifaceted approach for queer and trans* student HBCU retention. It addresses concerns that occur both inside and outside of the classroom that could potentially impede these particular students from persisting, being retained, and graduating. Previous scholars have asserted that HBCU student “retention” or “success” is influenced by identity formation and values cultivation—and this is done in a distinct manner at HBCUs (Baker, Arroyo, Braxton, Gasman, & Francis, 2018). However, our conceptual lens is different because it directly addresses the student success of a population that has not been approached in this way within higher education and student affairs literature. Each year queer and trans* HBCU students voluntarily leave institutions of higher education, not necessarily due to poor academic performance but as a result of feelings of isolation or alienation due to negative academic or social experiences on their campuses.

HBCU cultures that center their fidelity and espoused missions to Black liberation have produced stellar results; however, there are HBCU students who have been underserved due to their diverse queer identities. Implementing this model in its entirety or even in part(s) would yield tremendous results for queer and trans* HBCU students who have had complicated relationships with their respective HBCU contexts. As these campuses move forward with strategies surrounding queer and trans* inclusion, they cannot be discussed apart from retention plans. Future research, initiatives, and interventions must continue to critically and thoughtfully explore effective solutions for better engaging queer and trans* HBCU students. Understanding the experiences of marginalized students and the meanings that they attach to their experiences is paramount in aiding their growth, development, and success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Steve D. Mobley, Jr.

Note

Author Biographies

Steve D. Mobley, Jr. is an assistant professor of higher education at The University of Alabama in the department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies. His scholarship focuses on the contemporary placement of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Particularly, his research underscores and highlights the understudied facets of HBCU communities including issues surrounding race, social class, and student sexuality. He also explores how low-income and first generation students access and persist within higher education environments and how African American collegians experience post-secondary contexts.

Leslie Hall is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Higher Education Leadership and Policy Studies at Howard University. His research agenda is focused on the pathways to the presidency for queer historically Black college and university (HBCU) administrators, leadership development for queer student leaders, and fundraising amongst queer populations of color. He is also the director of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC). At HRC, Leslie works with HBCU Presidents and administrators toward the goal of achieving full equality and inclusion for queer and trans* HBCU students.

References

Allen

W. R.

Jewell

J. O.

(2002). A backward glance forward: Past, present and future perspectives on historically Black colleges and universities. The Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 241–261.

Arroyo

A. T.

Gasman

(2014). An HBCU-based educational approach for Black college student success: Toward a framework with implications for all institutions. American Journal of Education, 121(1), 57–85.

Baker

D. J.

Arroyo

A. T.

Braxton

J. M.

Gasman

Francis

C. H.

(2018). Expanding the student persistence puzzle to minority serving institutions: The residential historically Black college and university context. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice ▪, ▪. doi:10.1177/1521025118784030

Beemyn

Curtis

Davis

Tubbs

N. J.

(2005). Transgender issues on college campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender identity and sexual orientation: Research, policy, and personal perspectives (New Directions for Student Services, Number 111 (2005-10-03), pp. 49–60). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bey

(2017). The trans*-ness of Blackness, the Blackness of trans*-ness. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 4, 275–295.

Bond, H. (2011). Black females in higher education at HBCUs: The paradox of success. In C. R. Chambers (Ed.), Diversity in Higher Education (Vol. 8, pp. 131--144). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Bonner

F. B.

(2002). Addressing gender issues in the historically black colleges and university community: A challenge and call to action. Journal of Negro Education, 70(3), 176–191.

Calabrese

S. K.

Krakower

D. S.

Mayer

K. H.

(2017). Integrating HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) into routine preventive health care to avoid exacerbating disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 107(12), 1883–1889.

Carter

B. A.

(2013). Nothing better or worse than being Black, gay, and in the band” A qualitative examination of gay undergraduates participating in historically Black college or university marching bands. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 26–43.

10.

Commodore

(2019). Losing herself to save herself: Perspectives on conservatism and concepts of self for Black women aspiring to the HBCU presidency. Hypatia, 34(3), 1–23. doi:10.1111/hypa.12480

11.

Decker

T. N.

(2014). A place at the table: Etiquette and invalidation in the quest for cultural capital at Spelman College. In Gasman

Commodore

(Eds.), Opportunities and challenges at historically Black colleges and universities (pp. 235–252). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

12.

Douglas

T. M. O.

(2012). HBCUs as sites of resistance: The malignity of materialism, western masculinity, and spiritual malefaction. The Urban Review, 44, 378–400.

13.

Dumas

M. J.

(2016). Against the dark: Antiblackness in education policy and discourse. Theory into Practice, 55(1), 11–19.

14.

Dumas

M. J.

Ross

K. M.

(2016). “ Be real Black for me’’: Imagining BlackCrit in education. Urban Education, 51(4), 415–442.

15.

Fries-Britt

Turner

(2002). Uneven stories: Successful Black collegians at a Black and a White campus. The Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 315–330.

16.

Ford

III. (2015). From navigation to negotiation: An examination of the lived experiences of Black gay male Alumni of historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(3), 353–373.

17.

Fulford

Wymer

(2019). Students as co-producers of queer pedagogy. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 2(1), 45–59.

18.

Garvey

J. C.

Drezner

N. D.

(2013). Advancement staff and alumni advocates: Cultivating LGBTQ alumni by promoting individual and community uplift. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(3), 199–218.

19.

Garvey

J. C.

Drezner

N. D.

(2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer alumni financial giving to and participation with undergraduate alma maters. College Student Affairs Journal, 34(2), 29–42.

20.

Garvey

J. C.

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. Summerville

K. S.

Moore

G. T.

(2019). Queer and trans* students of color: Navigating identity disclosure and college contexts. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(1), 150–178.

21.

Gasman

(2013). The changing face of historically Black colleges and universities. Philadelphia, PA: The Center for Minority Serving Institutions.

22.

Goings

R. B.

(2016). Investigating the experiences of two high-achieving black male HBCU graduates: An exploratory study. Negro Educational Review, 67(1–4), 54–75.

23.

Grundy

(2012). “ An air of expectancy” Class, crisis, and the making of manhood at a historically Black college for men. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 642(1), 43–60.

24.

Harper

S. R.

Carini

R. M.

Bridges

B. K.

Hayek

J. C.

(2004). Gender differences in student engagement among African American undergraduates at historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 271–284.

25.

Harper

S. R.

Gasman

(2008). Consequences of conservatism: Black male undergraduates and the politics of historically Black colleges and universities. The Journal of Negro Education, 77(4), 336–351.

26.

Harris

III. (2010). College men’s meanings of masculinities and contextual influences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 297–318.

27.

Harris

F. C.

(2014). The rise of respectability politics. Dissent, 61(1), 33–37.

28.

Hartman

S. V.

(2007). Lose your mother. New York, NY: Farrar.

29.

Higginbotham

E. B.

(1993). Righteous discontent: The women’s movement in the Black Baptist church, 1880–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

30.

Jett

C. C.

(2013). HBCUs propel Black male mathematics majors. Journal of African American Studies, 17, 198–205.

31.

Johnson

E. P.

(2008). Sweet tea: Black gay men of the South. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

32.

Johnson

J. M.

(2017). Social norms, gender ratio imbalance, perceptions of risk, and the sexual behaviors of African American women at historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of African American Studies, 21(2), 203–215.

33.

Kennedy

J. L.

(2012). The HBCU experience: Liberating or not? The Urban Review, 44(3), 358–377.

34.

Kim

M. M.

(2002). Historically Black versus White institutions: Academic developments among Black students. Review of Higher Education, 25, 385–407.

35.

Kirby

V. D.

(2011). The Black closet: The need for LGBT resource and research centers on historically Black campuses. LGBTQ Policy Journal at the Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By7X7ddzwjwVZlFpdmVIWkdRLU0/view

36.

Lenning

(2017). Unapologetically queer in unapologetically Black spaces: Creating an inclusive HBCU campus. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39, 283–293.

37.

Lewis

M. W.

Ericksen

K. S.

(2016). Improving the climate for LGBTQ students at an historically Black university. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(3), 249–269.

38.

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), 124–141.

39.

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. (2017). Seeking sanctuary: (Re)Claiming the power of historically Black colleges and universities as places of Black refuge. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(10), 1036–1041.

40.

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. Johnson

J. M.

(2015). The role of HBCUs in addressing the unique needs of LGBT students. In Palmer

Shorette

, and Gasman

(Eds.), Exploring diversity at historically Black colleges and universities: Implications for policy and practice (pp. 79–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. Johnson

J. M.

(2019). “ No pumps allowed”: The “problem” with gender expression and the Morehouse College “appropriate attire policy.” Journal of Homosexuality, 66(7), 867–895.

42.

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. McNally

Moore

(2019). Revealing the potential for HBCUs to be liberatory environments for queer students. In Zamani-Gallaher

E. M.

Choudhuri

D. D.

Taylor

J. L.

(Eds.), Rethinking LGBTQIA students and collegiate contexts: Identity, policies, and campus climate (pp. 99–119). New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. Solomon

I. I. S. L.

Johnson

A. C.

Reynolds

(forthcoming). “Troubling the waters”: Unpacking and (re)imagining the historical and contemporary complexity of historically Black college and university cultural politics. In Williams

B. C.

Tuitt

Squire

(Eds.), Campus rebellions and plantation politics: Power, privilege, and the emancipatory struggle in higher education (pp. ▪–▪). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

44.

Nash

(2017). Intersectionality and its discontents. American Quarterly, 69(1), 117–129.

45.

Nicolazzo

Marine

S. B.

Wagner

(2018). From best to intentional practices: Reimagining implementation of gender-inclusive housing. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(2), 225–236.

46.

Njoku

Butler

Beatty

C. C.

(2017). Reimagining the historically Black college and university (HBCU) environment: Exposing race secrets and the binding chains of respectability and othermothering. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(8), 783–799.

47.

Nguyen

Samayoa

A. C.

Gasman

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. (2018). Challenging respectability: Student health directors providing services to lesbian and gay students at historically Black colleges and universities. Teachers College Record, 120(2), 1–44.

48.

Palmer

Gasman

(2008). “ It takes a village to raise a child”: The role of social capital in promoting academic success for African American men at a Black college. Journal of College Student Development, 49(1), 52–70.

49.

Palmer

R. T.

Walker

L. J.

(2019, August). Comparisons may unintentionally perpetuate and validate White supremacy. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://diverseeducation.com/article/152129/

50.

Palmer

R. T.

Young

E. M.

(2009). Determined to succeed: Salient factors that foster academic success for academically unprepared Black males at a Black college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 10(4), 465–482.

51.

Pattillo

(2007). Back on the block: The politics of race and class in the city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

52.

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.

53.

Patton

L. D.

(2014). Preserving respectability or blatant disrespect? A critical discourse analysis of the Morehouse Appropriate Attire Policy and implications for intersectional approaches to examining campus policies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies, 27(6), 724–746.

54.

Patton

L. D.

(2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban Education, 51, 315–342.

55.

Patton

L. D.

Simmons

S. L.

(2008). Exploring complexities of multiple identities in a Black college environment. The Negro Educational Review, 59(3–4), 197215.

56.

Reeder

M. C.

Schmitt

(2013). Motivational and judgment predictors of African American academic achievement at PWIs and HBCUs. Journal of College Student Development, 54(1), 29–42.

57.

Richards

D. A.

Awokoya

J. T.

(2012). Understanding HBCU retention and completion. Washington, DC: UNCF Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute.

58.

Saunders

K. M.

Nagle

B. T.

(2018). HBCUs punching above their weight: A state-level analysis of historically Black college and university enrollment and graduation. Washington, DC: UNCF Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute.

59.

Shorette

Palmer

R. T.

(2015). Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs): Critical facilitators of non-cognitive skills for Black males. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 39(1), 18–29.

60.

Squire

Mobley

S. D.

Jr. (2015). Negotiating race and sexual orientation in the college choice process of Black gay males. The Urban Review, 47(3), 466–491.

61.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2014). Making a way to success: Self-authorship and academic achievement of first-year African American students at historically Black colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 55(2), 151–167.

62.

Strayhorn

T. L.

Hirt

J. B.

(2008). Social justice and student affairs work at minority serving institutions. In Gasman

M. B.

Baez

Turner

C. S. V.

(Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 203–216). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

63.

Strayhorn

T. L.

Scott

J. A.

(2012). Coming out of the dark: Black gay men’s experiences at historically Black colleges and universities. In Palmer

R. T.

Wood

J. L.

(Eds.), Black men in college: Implications for HBCUs and beyond (pp. 26–40). New York, NY: Palgrave.

64.

Walker

L. J.

(2015). Trauma, environmental stressors, and the African-American college student: Research, practice, and HBCUs. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions. Retrieved from http://www2.gse.upenn.edu/cmsi/content/reports

65.

Washington

Wall

V. A.

(2010). African American gay men: Another challenge for the academy. In Harper

S.R.

Harris

III (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, practice, and implications for practice (pp. 136–147). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

66.

White

E. F.

(2001). Dark continent of our bodies: Black feminism and the politics of respectability. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

67.

Williams

K. L.

Burt

B. A.

Clay

K. L.

Bridges

B. K.

(2019). Stories untold: Counter- narratives to anti-Blackness and deficit-oriented discourse concerning HBCUs. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 556–599.

68.

Williams

K. L.

Davis

B. L.

(2019). Public and private investments and divestments in historically Black colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

69.

Winkle-Wagner

McCoy

D. L.

(2018). Feeling like an “Alien” or “Family”? Comparing students and faculty experiences of diversity in STEM disciplines at a PWI and an HBCU. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(5), 593–606.