For example, many sexual minority students begin to understand their sexual identities for the first time ( Rhoads 1994), face anti-gay sentiment ( Cotten-Huston and Waite 2000 Woodford et al. But achieving these identities is harder for some than others, with students’ backgrounds and social characteristics shaping their experiences in higher education. 2014), achieving or affirming master statuses such as religious (or secular) identities and sexual identities. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research, including specific implications for religious higher education.Įarly adulthood is key for identity formation, and higher education is where many students “find themselves” ( Smith and Snell 2009 Snell Herzog and Wedow 2012 Brenner et al. We demonstrate that support from peers and (re)interpretations of official Church doctrine are key factors in the development and negotiation of sexual and religious identities. Through participant observation and interviews conducted with gay and lesbian students, we identify and discuss four identity categories based on whether students embrace or reject religious identities and sexual minority identities: (1) integrated (embrace both identities), (2) liberated (embrace sexual identity, reject religious identity), (3) embattled (embrace religious identity, reject sexual identity), and (4) disillusioned (uncertainty about both identities).
We explore context-specific identity negotiation to determine how and why, even in a time of increasing societal acceptance of sexual minorities, boundaries between faith and sexual identity persist. This article examines the negotiation of sexual and religious identities among gay and lesbian students on a Catholic university campus.