Los Estados Partes Argentina

In practice, it is important for higher education institutions as well as for federal and state legislation to consider a number of things related to the queer community, as research has shown

that college campuses and many other public services tend to be hostile environments for queer students (D’Augelli, 1989; 1992; Evans & Broido, 1999; Rankin, 2003; Rhoads, 1997; Wickens & Sandlin, 2010). As a result, it is imperative that postsecondary institutions are intentional about creating campus climates that are not only welcoming to queer students but that protect them from being abused and make them feel safe. There is no reason for why a student, regardless of their sexuality or race/ethnicity, should feel unsafe on college campuses. In understanding these experiences, it is the responsibility of institutional stakeholders and policymakers to be more considerate of gay Latino males’ educational undertakings so that they can be better served throughout the educational pipeline and can graduate at greater rates.

This study makes a contribution by identifying vulnerabilities participants considered to be the most prominent in creating negative experiences for them. It is important to note that the vulnerabilities presented here are not exclusive to higher education spaces, as students identities are carried from one context to another (e.g. home, school, work, etc.). By becoming aware of the vulnerabilities affecting gay Latino men, higher education institutions can then strategically develop initiatives and institutional policies that ameliorate the effects derived from the identified challenges.

In the same thread, postsecondary institutions need to consider the implementation of a queer student resource center as a protective factor that contributes to students’ resilience. According to Beemyn (2000), there were only five professionally staffed LGBT centers on college campuses prior to 1990. If queer students are known to have negative experiences on college campuses and there are few to no physical spaces that can assist them in countering the effects that derive from those experiences, it becomes harder for them to find safety and do well academically. The presence of physical spaces and people who are invested and committed to the

success of queer students can be an imperative protective factor for gay Latinos. Within that, however, it is equally important that such spaces cater to the specific needs of Latina/o students and other people of color. Perhaps, hiring people that reflect the racial/ethnic and lived experiences of students of color may be helpful.

Educating the student body on issues related to sexuality and having zero tolerance for those who do not follow set regulations is essential for supporting students. It is important for educational institutions to “radically transform the anti-queer institutional cultures…by engaging students, teachers, and other stakeholders in respectful and critical deliberations over homophobia and its effects” (Brockenbrough, 2012, p. 758). Not only can institutional agents across colleges and universities serve in the familial role that is absent for some Latino students, as viewed in the following chapter, but they can also create safe spaces that allow queer students to develop their sexualities. For some queer students, especially those that have little to no autonomy to express and explore their sexuality at home, it is precisely their college campus that facilitates their coming out process. As such, this study contributes by making institutional stakeholders aware of the culture throughout the educational pipeline, particularly for gay Latinos. These cultures, in many ways, dictate the types of experiences gay Latinos have, subsequently influencing their resilience. Since colleges and universities are considered important spaces were students develop many of their identities as well as exercise a level of autonomy, it is important that they are conducive to positive outcomes.

At the state and federal levels, it is imperative for politicians to first stop the proposing and enactment of policies that hinder the experiences of the queer community. There has recently been a plethora of bills and policies meant to oppress them––from bathroom bills to policies that prohibit same sex marriage (Bendery & Signorile, 2016). In 2016, there were over 100 active

bills across 22 states that were meant to perpetuate the subjugation that the queer community has historically endured. Bendery and Signorile (2016) discussed how a law in Mississippi allowed people to deny services to same-sex couples for religious reasons while there were bills that allowed public universities to fund student organizations, regardless of whether the organization discriminated against LGBT people (Bendery & Signorile, 2016).

Secondly, state and federal governments need to implement laws and policies that allow and promote same sex marriage and that reprimand those who actively engage in hostile behavior towards queer individuals. This investigation contributes by demonstrating that resilience is a process that is heavily influenced by structural entities, including legislation. If there are policies and bills in place that deter gay Latinos from exercising their basic human rights, they are more likely to experience vulnerabilities, inadvertently affecting their resilience. Discriminatory legislation affects gay Latinos in all life facets, especially since they are known to fall within the vulnerability factor category in a resilience framework, especially as discussed here.