The following was written by a student at the Catholic University of America.

Late one night during my sophomore year, here at CUA, I was asleep in my dorm room in Ryan.  It was probably around 3:00 AM when I awoke to several loud bangs on my door.  I heard several voices out in the hallway, all male, and they were all laughing and talking about me.  They yelled, “Yo, come out here faggot!”

I continued to lie in my bed; my heart was racing, and I didn’t know what to do.  Another male then said, “Yo, get the fuck out here faggot so I can beat the shit out of you!”  I glanced across the room to my roommate’s bed to see if he had woken up, but it seemed he hadn’t.

The group in the hallway continued to bang on the door as hard and as much as they could.  The hinges on the door were rattling and I was afraid that given the force with which they were hitting the door, the door itself would break at any given moment.

Then, the banging stopped and the voices were reduced to light giggling and laughter.  It was at this point that I could hear the guys outside my room writing on the whiteboard outside my door.  After a few minutes they began to bang on the door some more, screaming for me to come out there to see them, then the voices died down and then finally there were no more sounds in the hallway.

I was breathing rapidly, and it was only after ten minutes that I had the courage to get out of my bed to go over to the door.  I looked through the peephole and saw that no one was outside.  I opened the door and looked at my whiteboard and written all across it were profanities regarding my sexuality along with vulgar images of penises.

I called DPS and they responded and I filed a report, but nothing ever came of it.  I lived two doors down from one of my two RAs, yet neither he nor the other one responded that night.  Neither of my RAs were around that night, and as such, there was no one who could have responded right away to help me.  I felt as though I couldn’t talk to anyone about it, except for close friends, and that there was no one who could legitimately sympathize with me.

That night, I felt entirely alone.

This year will go down in history as full equality became one step closer for millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adult community members.  From the historic Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, which will eventually allow openly lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers to serve,  to full marriage equality in Washington D.C., to victories such as hospital visitation mandates for LGBT families nationally.

One of the biggest under-reported stories of 2010 affects a population who mostly cannot yet legally vote nor make a donation to a campaign or an organization, and most of whom still depend on an adult to look out for their best interests and in some cases save their lives:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming youth and allies.

In 2010 we saw bullying and harassment in schools and communities in Washington, D.C, Texas,  Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Massachusetts,  Colorado,  Virginia, Florida, New York, Michigan, Utah, Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Louisiana, Idaho, Connecticut and California, and those were just the stories that we heard about.

In more than half of the United States of America in 2010, youth experienced bullying and harassment.

In 2010, we lost over 20 youth due to reported suicide from bullying and harassment. Keep in mind: those are only the reported cases. Across the nation, we were heartbroken and shocked to learn about many suicides due to bullying harassment, including Seth Walsh, Tyler Clementi, Phoebe Prince, Chloe Lacey, and others. The youngest student that attempted to take hir life from severe bullying and harassment at school was just six years old. Not every story made the news.

This year we also saw student heroes like Will Phillips, Constance McMillen, Ceara Sturgis, Paige Rawl, Graeme Taylor, Derrick Martin stand up and fight back after serve bullying and harassment at school. There are countless other youth whose stories have yet to be told about their struggle, strength, courage, and pain facing bullying and harassment in schools, colleges, and universities.  Over 150,000 students miss school each day due to bullying and harassment. And 9 out 10 LGBT youth experience bullying and harassment—especially given the advent of  Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites. According to GLSEN, 40% of all youth who have access to a computer have experienced cyber bullying.

Youth in 2010 have faced not just bullying and harassment, but homelessness as well.  Up to 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBT and are struggling for food and shelter across this nation. Most of these homeless youth were thrown out of their homes or disowned by their families, left on the streets because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

And even progressive advances such as the DADT Repeal Act of 2010 still do not address creating safe spaces for lesbian and gay youth in JROTC, young adults in ROTC, or cadets in our nation’s schools, colleges, and universities.

How are we truly providing high quality education if we are not providing inclusive safe schools?

In 2011 we must fight together to make safe schools a priority so that all youth—regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity (actual or perceived), socioeconomic status, disability or impairment , religion, immigration status, race, national origin, HIV/AIDS status, or any other identity—are free from bullying, harassment and discrimination.

What can you do?

Join the movement for safe schools in your local communities and stand up to bullying and harassment when you hear it, see it and take action. Help create inclusive safe spaces and anti-bullying and harassment polices on a local, state-wide, and federal level such as the Student Non-Discrimination Act and Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Make 2011 the year we invest in youth and make sure no child is left behind by making inclusive safe schools  a reality.

Get Involved today: Safe Schools Action Network, GLSEN, Make it Better Project, Project Life Vest, Operation Shine America, PFLAG, Trevor Project, It Gets Better Project, Ali Forney Center, GSA Network and your local PTA, LGBT community Center, classroom, school board or college campus.

If you need help please call The Trevor Help Line at: 1-800-U- TREVOR (800-488-7386)

There’s something I think is unique about this group, or at the very least about the attention it has let itself get. I don’t think there is another group for higher education professionals that is specifically for individuals with queer identities. This might sound surprising. Both ACPA and NASPA have many LGBT-specific efforts and goals, and certainly it is no secret that most of the members of the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals identity as queer as well. But none of these groups are specifically for LGBTQ professionals.

Another interesting aspect of the Presidents group is a willingness to be public advocates. One of my largest complaints about higher education is that we have this profession full of people who study and promote social justice in their work, and yet the field itself is so very insular and self-serving such that much of that potential for change stops at the campus border. The Presidents group, on the other hand, has made itself quite visible, and now they have also now produced an It Gets Better-esque/Coming Out video that I think is extremely effective.

While I know these university leaders have very busy lives administrating their institutions, I hope this is a trend that they continue. Higher education is a source of leadership and support embedded in our culture, and only good can from its professionals speaking out and trying to make a difference in society.

Read more about the group here and check out the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QKwyJAIaKQ

While this is a thorough research study, there is still valuable (if not crucial) data through its pages that demonstrate a sense of urgency for our whole society. Universities are often seen as liberal, welcoming environments, but this exhaustive study shows that for members of the queer community, the campus climate is often anything but welcoming.

I will be offering various posts about it throughout the week, but I want to start today with a primer for how this research was conducted. Because of its scope and density, it can be hard to approach, and there is a lot to be learned simply from the methods of the researchers. I hope this post is a helpful guide for understanding the results.

Overlapping Identities

What makes this study so complex is that the sample has a variety of overlapping identities. It’s not quite as simple as having one control and one variable. There are numerous variables, and aspects of the sample overlap in ways that can be confusing at first.

For example, the 5,149 respondents included undergraduate students (46%), graduate students (17%), faculty members (10%), staff members (21%), and administrators (7%) from campuses in all 50 states. That means that throughout the results, “respondents” does not mean just students. Obviously, the data is analyzed to control for different roles on campus; however, most of the results speak to all respondents’ perceptions.

Consider, then, the different intersections of gender identity, gender expression, sexual identity, and race and it’s clear to see that there are a lot of different overlapping groups. This is all important to understand for folks who might think that campus climate is only determined by students, or for folks who think there are only two discreet groups: queer folks and non-queer folks.

Campus Climate

It is obviously important to define the concept of campus climate, since that is what is measured by this study. There is a very detailed review of how climate has been defined as well as the different ways it has (and hasn’t) been studied. I think the Transformational Tapestry Model conceptualized by Rankin and Reason (2008) offers the best understanding of this concept. Campus climate is defined as

current attitudes, behaviors and standards, and practices of employees and students of an institution.

According to the model, there are six independent, yet interconnected areas that influence campus climate:

» Access and retention (i.e., includes access to higher education and provision of the necessary supports for success and retention)

» Research and scholarship (i.e., includes encouragement of diversity in educational and scholarly activity)

» Inter- and intra-group relations (i.e., includes diverse student body with educationally purposeful interventions and interactions)

» Curriculum and pedagogy (i.e., includes diversity education and proactive educational interventions)

» University policies and services (i.e., includes university commitment to diversity and social justice through response to harassment, and written and behavioral policies)

» External relationships (i.e., includes acknowledgment of and response to external influences in society and government)

When a campus climate is perceived as negative, it can impact students’ educational performance, attrition, and adjustment, as well as the personal and professional development and retention of employees.

In terms of sexual identity, there has been limited study of campus climates, and in terms of gender identity (particularly for those outside the gender binary), there has been virtually none. This is by far the most comprehensive study of campus climates for LGBTQQ individuals.

Sexual Identity (LGBQ) and Gender Identity (Trans and GNC)

One of the most interesting things about this study is what it reveals about how individuals identify. Participants were asked a variety of questions with the opportunity to open answer any of them. They were asked about their birth sex, their gender identity, their gender expression, their sexual identity (the term they use), and who they are attracted to. This was then coded to create two general groups.

In terms of sexual identity, respondents were grouped as LGBQ or Heterosexual. Due to a small number of responses, respondents who identified as “asexual” or “don’t know” were not included in analyses regarding sexual identity. It is interesting to note here that while 53% of respondents were gay, lesbian or similar, 12.3% identified as bisexual and 15.8% identified as queer. This might surprise some who are unaware of the way “queer” is growing in popularity as a self-identifier. It was a more prominent term for students (about 20%), but was also used by faculty (11.2 %), staff (9.6%), and administrators (7.5%).

In terms of gender identity, respondents were grouped as men and women, transgender masculine spectrum (birth sex female), transgender feminine spectrum (birth sex male), and gender non-conforming (GNC). Another interesting note here is that more individuals identified as GNC (8.1%) than as transmasculine or transfeminine combined (5.4%). This speaks to the same sense of ambiguity achieved by the sexual identity of “queer.”

It’s important to note that sexual identity and gender identity are two separate breakdowns of the sample and are not mutually exclusive. There are likely respondents who would fall under both the LGBQ and Trans/GNC groupings as well as respondents who only fall into one group or the other. This is important to remember when analyzing the results in regard to these two identifiers.

Intersections with Racial Identity

This study also looks at the interactions of race with sexual identity and gender identity. A bit less than a quarter of respondents identified as one of the “People of Color” categories, which included “African, “African American/Black,” Alaskan Native, “Asian,” “Asian American,” Southeast Asian,” “Caribbean/West Indian,” “Latin American,” “Latino(a)/Hispanic,” “Middle Eastern,” “Native American,” and “Pacific Islander/Hawaiian Native.”

Respondents could identify with multiple identities. I think it’s helpful to see the care taken to create inclusive categories for these identities, which is the only reason I reproduce them here.

Harassment

I also want to offer the definition of the word “harassment” used by the study, as some may not understand the breadth of this term. Harassment is:

Exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (harassing behavior) that had interfered with their ability to work or learn on their campus within the past year.

This is a slightly more nuanced definition from United States Code.

Forms of harassment revealed by the study include:

» Receiving derogatory remarks
» Feeling deliberately ignored or excluded
» Feeling isolated or left out
» Observing others staring
» Being singled out as a resident authority to their identity
» Feeling intimidated or bullied
» Fearing getting a bad grade because of a hostile classroom environment
» Receiving low performance evaluations
» Receiving derogatory written comments
» Being assumed of admission or hire because of identity
» Fearing for physical safety
» Being victim of a crime
» Being target of graffiti
» Being target of physical violence

What To Expect…

In the coming days, I’ll be writing with more detail about the study’s findings. Look forward to reading about what respondents are experiencing, what perceptions respondents have of campus climate, individual and institutional responses to campus climate, and potential best practices.

This is important research and I hope that my posts can make it more tangible for folks who won’t have access to the full study or who might struggle to wade through all the data.

If you have any questions about what I’ve shared so far, please feel free to include them in the comments.

Yesterday, I had the privilege to attend the Congressional briefing for the new study from Campus Pride, the 2010 State of Higher Education for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People. My original plan was to report on the briefing (pics below), but now that I have a copy of the 180+ page study in my hands, I’m going to pour through it and offer a more detailed report next week.

In the meantime, check out the courage of a group of students at the University of Rhode Island who have been protesting sing 12:01 AM yesterday morning until their administrators follow through on promises for LGBT support and campus safety. Matt Comer’s been doing some great coverage on the Campus Pride blog:

» Announcement of protest.
» Protest underway.
» Photos from the protest.
» URI blocks press coverage.
» Protest update and news round-up.

I wish the best for these students. They are advocating for their lives. Keep up the good work!

Here are a few pictures from yesterday’s briefing.

Angela Peoples, Policy and Advocacy Manager for Campus Progress:

Jacob Wilson, student at Iowa State University (and friend of the blog):

Have a good weekend everyone.

Gays are pedophiles (the Catholic Church still thinks so). (Also still: Trans women are just men who want to molest little girls in the bathroom.) Gays want to kidnap kids. Gays want to recruit kids. Gays want to teach kids to be gay. Gays want to teach kids about gay sex. Gays want to teach kids about gay marriage. Gays want to teach kids that gay people exist.

Now, the last two don’t sound so bad, but they are always presented in a way to insinuate the old language. The message is the same: gays are evil and our kids are at risk. We’ve got to protect them!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw

Today we learned about a number of teenage suicides that were fomented by anti-gay bullying. Justin Aaberg of Minnesota hung himself in July. Billy Lucas of Indiana hung himself just last week. Both were 15. (Hat tip to Towleroad for reporting on each: here and here.)

It seems that students were relentless at tormenting Billy Lucas while teachers and administrators were oblivious.

According to WTHR:

Friends of Lucas say that he had been tormented for years.

“Some people at school called him names,” Hughes said, saying most of those names questioned Lucas’ sexual orientation, and that Lucas, for the most part, did little to defend himself.

“He would try to but people would just try to break him down with words and stuff and just pick on him,” Hughes said.

According to WXIN:

Students told Fox59 News it was common knowledge that children bullied Billy and from what they said, it was getting worse. Last Thursday, Billy’s mother found him dead inside their barn. He had hung himself.

Students said on that same day, some students told Billy to kill himself.

“They said stuff like ‘you’re like a piece of crap’ and ‘you don’t deserve to live.’ Different things like that. Talked about how he was gay or whatever,” said Swango.

Principal Phil Chapple doesn’t deny that students are bullied in the high school, but he said he didn’t know Billy was one of the victims.

“We were not aware of that situation,” said Chapple.

The case of Justin Aaberg reveals how school teachers can be so oblivious to gay bullying: because they’re instructed to.

As reported by WCCO, The Anoka-Hennepin School District has a policy that reads:

Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations.

How horrid is that? A school refuses to teach about a natural part of human diversity and leaves it to the community to continue reinforcing all the negative messages that aren’t based on truth.

And will the school change its curriculum policy? No.

The Anoka-Hennepin School District said the curriculum policy and bullying are two entirely separate issues.

“It’s very difficult. We have a community that has widely varying opinions, and so to respect all families, as the policy says, we ask teachers to remain neutral,” said District Spokeswoman Mary Olson.

Remain neutral. A kid was harassed to such an extent that he didn’t think his life was worth living and teachers have to remain neutral to “respect families.”

Read it again. That is the world we live in. That is enshrined homophobia. That is a policy that represents fear motivated by demonization.

Incidentally, GLSEN today published the key findings of its 2009 National School Climate Survey. Here are some chilling numbers for you:

84.6% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 40.1% reported being physically harassed and 18.8% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.

63.7% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 27.2% reported being physically harassed and 12.5% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their gender expression.

72.4% heard homophobic remarks, such as “faggot” or “dyke,” frequently or often at school.

Nearly two-thirds (61.1%) of students reported that they felt unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation, and more than a third (39.9%) felt unsafe because of their gender expression.

That’s last year. Not 1985; 2009. It makes me ill just thinking about it. And what did the study find worked at helping reducing these numbers? In addition to having a GSA,

The presence of supportive staff contributed to a range of positive indicators including fewer reports of missing school, fewer reports of feeling unsafe, greater academic achievement, higher educational aspirations and a greater sense of school belonging.

Students attending schools with an anti-bullying policy that included protections based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression heard fewer homophobic remarks, experienced lower levels of victimization related to their sexual orientation, were more likely to report that staff intervened when hearing homophobic remarks and were more likely to report incidents of harassment and assault to school staff than students at schools with a general policy or no policy.

But unfortunately:

Despite the positive benefits of these interventions, less than a half of LGBT students (44.6%) reported having a Gay-Straight Alliance at school, slightly more than half (53.4%) could identify six or more supportive educators and less than a fifth (18.2%) attended a school that had a comprehensive anti-bullying policy.

What’s worse, we know that these numbers translate into higher education as well. A new study, “State of Higher Education for LGBT People” is being released this month that shows young people continue to experience harassment for sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on our college campuses.

83% of LGBT college students reported experiencing harassment for their sexual identity, with numbers even higher for students who were trans-identified. In fact, 87% of trans-masculine identified individuals reported experience harassment for their gender expression with 82% of trans-feminine identified individuals reporting similar harassment.

The problem here is that our schools aren’t educating. We aren’t willing to talk about what we know. Gender and sexuality are a part of who humans are, but we refuse to dispense uniform informed information to our young people. Out of “respect,” we prefer to let stereotypes and fear persist.

This is a crime against our society, and the deaths of Billy Lucas and Justin Aaberg rest on the shoulders of groups like Focus on the Family who insist that sexual orientation not be taught in our schools.

So you get to pick. Do we teach kids about the realities of the world or do we sustain the ignorance that drains them of all meaning to live?

That I know of, the Consortium is the first student affairs organization to speak out in this way. I’m proud of my colleagues in the Consortium for leading a trend of higher education professionals who preach what they practice.

Here is the full statement:

The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals, a national organization of more than 400 college faculty, staff, and administrators who provide support and services to LGBT students, strongly urges institutions of higher education throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia to maintain protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression in statements of non-discrimination.

The lack of inclusive policies place students who might identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT) at great risk, as discrimination against students, faculty and staff who are LGBT or perceived as LGBT is widespread.  A national campus climate study by Sue Rankin, entitled Campus Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: A National Perspective, found that 41 percent of the self-identified transgender students who participated reported experiencing verbal and/or physical harassment on their campuses.  Many of the transgender participants were not open about their gender identity for fear of being harassed. Similarly, more than one-third of all LGBT respondent experiences some sort of harassment. In the same study, 74 percent of respondents rated overall campus climate as homophobic.

As educators and administrators, we are charged with ensuring that our campuses remain a safe, affirming environment for all students of all identities. One of the most important signposts of an institution’s welcoming environment is their non-discrimination statement.  These policies not only provide tangible support to those directly named, but also send a strong message that discrimination will not be tolerated.  By removing sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression, institutions essentially signal that discrimination against LGBT students, faculty and staff is acceptable.

We hope you will reaffirm your commitment to serving all students by maintaining named protections for LGBT people in statements of non-discrimination.

In Solidarity,

Executive Board

Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals

Here’s a question for you: What is the purpose of college athletics?

I’m not sure I know the answer, but I’m willing to bet it changes depending on who you ask. I also bet that you won’t get an honest answer from everyone you ask. Books can (and have) been written on the topic, so I’m not going to dwell on it, except to say that we cannot deny that “money” is an answer that would come up a lot.

I’d offer that any time universities are represented or showcased in any way, those representations should honor those universities’ values and the support they offer their students. I’d like to think that a university who has made a commitment to protecting its LGBT students from discrimination would then abstain from being represented in any way that compromises that commitment. Otherwise it’s an empty promise.

With that context, let’s consider the news Pat Griffin broke this week. (If you don’t know Pat, she is a wonderful advocate for LGBT athletes.) On her blog yesterday, she pointed out that the NCAA is complicit in allowing Focus on the Family to run ads during CBS’s coverage of the upcoming Men’s Basketball Tournament. Such ads, spouting the same “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” message from the Superbowl Tim Tebow commercial, are already appearing on the NCAA’s website.

Jeremy Hooper reminds us why Focus on the Family is a serious concern. They are virulently opposed to homosexuality and a woman’s right to choose. Jeremy did a search and found a ton of hurtful ex-gay propaganda on the FOF page. He also found that the top four headlines on FOF’s Citizenlink this morning were ALL about LGBT issues.

Pat sums it up nicely as she expresses her outrage:

Focus on the Family is a right-wing Christian political organization that not only opposes a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, they also are one of the most powerful national opponents of civil rights for LGBT people. You can bet they are in the forefront of every national and state battle over LGBT rights and abortion rights. Now they want to impose their values on the NCAA tournament and college basketball fans and the NCAA and CBS are inviting them to. They are rolling out the red carpet and I am deeply offended by the NCAA’s complicity in this.

And Pat doesn’t hedge on exactly what this means:

This is an outrageous slap in the face to every LGBT person and their allies in athletics and to all other people who believe in a woman’s right to choose who are associated with the NCAA.

I couldn’t agree more.

Pat went on, this afternoon, to show just how flagrantly these ads violate the NCAA’s Advertising and Promotional Standards. Meanwhile, friend of the blog Sean Chapin had started a Facebook group to rally support and get folks to contact the NCAA.

We learned this afternoon that the FOF ads have been pulled from the NCAA website. This is a great success, but I doubt this issue has seen its end. Focus on the Family will still be eager to include its television ads during March Madness.

Perhaps the drama is over for the day, but my question is: where was higher education? There was not a peep on The Chronicle or Inside Higher Ed today (maybe blogs still aren’t seen as legitimate contributions?). I didn’t hear of any schools adding to the protest. Were they not concerned about the impact FOF would have on their students?

So what is the role of college athletics? Today’s events suggest schools are not particularly concerned about the impact of athletics on students. It was up to bloggers and LGBT activists to respond. It’s disconcerting to think (or realize) just to what extent the money is taking priority.

If a whole bunch of universities put out statements this week denouncing FOF and their ads, I’ll stand corrected. Until then, I’ll keep wagging my finger.

Care about LGBT students or don’t care, universities. You have a choice.

“It was too narrow in scope,” [Vice President of Human Relations Richard] Boyle says in a video recording of the meeting. Groups “have to serve an educational purpose with a breadth and scope that everyone within the university can be a part of.”

Two weeks ago, Kerry Cox, director of student activities, had rejected the group’s application:

“The rationale for organizing the club does not meet either our educational or our social service criterion for approval,” Cox said in his letter. “Rather, its principal purpose appears to be the support and promotion of a particular lifestyle.” Cox also said the GSA “does not coincide with the traditional values of Lindenwood University.”

Uh-oh. It’s never a good sign when you hear the L-word. You know… “lifestyle.” “Traditional values” is icing on the cake of prejudice.

He went on to say that the GSA application is “rather parochial and self-serving. It doesn’t offer a benefit to the campus community. Lindenwood University would like the members of the organization to consider a social justice alliance that could deal with race, religion, sexual orientation and other issues that face frequent scrutiny.”

The university wants to tell a group of marginalized students how to advocate for themselves? Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

And since when are an improved campus climate and increased awareness about identity development not benefits to a campus community?

If that weren’t disappointing enough, check out the “solution”:

» The group’s title cannot include “sexual orientation.”
» The group’s mission must be expanded to include “other students in need of understanding and support.”
» This means the group must also represent students with disabilities and whoever else falls into that vague category.

Essentially, Lindenwood said that LGBT students weren’t marginalized enough on their own, so their only choice was to represent all marginalized students. Except students of color, I guess? They aren’t even mentioned in the article. But hey, there are seven different Christian groups on campus. Double standard much, Lindenwood?

I think this approach is offensive on many levels. First and foremost, it highlights the very need for an organization just for LGBT concerns. Second, it adds to the marginalization of students with disabilities! Check out this quote!

Boyle said he added the disabled as one of the groups because “we don’t have that many disabled students on our campus. Why not bring them into the group so they can feel they are a part?”

Aside from not knowing the most appropriate language to address students with disabilities, he just wants to throw them in there? How patronizing. I have to agree with my friend and colleague, Shane Windmeyer:

“They’re being told they can have a club, but they have to be in it with all the other marginalized groups,” said Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride, a nonprofit that helps with programs and services for gay college groups across the country. “It basically says you’re not important enough to have your own club.”

This is all absurd. And in this case, the university isn’t even (explicitly) affiliated with a religious organization. It sure seems to act like one. This is a blatant application of prejudice with little appreciation for social justice values or identity development.

To the queer students and allies at Lindenwood: Congratulations on getting your organization! Despite the bizarre compromises you had to make to get recognized, do everything you can now to fulfill your original intent. Your university needs all the support it can get to improve awareness and campus climate around LGBT issues. Don’t hold back. The work has just begun.

I want to highlight one of the discussions I was able to participate in about working with LGBT issues at faith-based institutions. There were a number of folks in the room who work at such schools, while some others worked at public schools that feel like religiously-affiliated schools, and others (like myself) were just interested in the topic.

There were a lot of different opinions but a lot of great ideas, and the group gave me permission to write about some of our discussions.

A lot of the conversation was focused on how we frame discussions with students who have anti-gay religious beliefs. It doesn’t work to just say “Your beliefs are wrong,” so we have to find ways that allow them to feel welcomed to the conversation, but so that the conversation still allows for challenge and good critical dialogue. Different tactics might need to be used for different organizations, different leaders, and different ministries.

There are some great ways to approach these groups. One of the ideas I really appreciated is engaging in “conversations about how [a person's] faith affects others.” As one of my colleagues pointed out:

Everyone believes human dignity is important.

It’s all about creating common ground. With the diversity of worldviews, consensus is an unrealistic goal, but common ground is a great starting point for progress.

It’s also not helpful to have the conversation on theological grounds. One of my colleagues works at a Jesuit institution, and she uses the Jesuit idea of the “wholeness” of humanity to appeal to the care of others. We can encourage students to include LGBT people without challenging church doctrine.

Part of this is thinking about stretching vs. straining but also helping others relate perspective. For example, if a religious group suggests it’s too much of a stretch for them to tolerate LGBT folks, then maybe it’s also a stretch for us to tolerate them in the same way. This helps frame the discussion toward finding that common ground of human dignity.

At the same time, it can be important at some schools to set pretty clear expectations about what is acceptable. One of my colleagues spoke to the ally training she does and some of the clear limits she sets, such as indicating that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is not an acceptable compromise. Another of my colleagues spoke to exploring the elasticity of religious laws and variations on interpretation. He made the point that no one could live 100% under Islamic doctrine, so at some point some moral relativism and secular reasoning kicks in. Others pointed out that the voice of the Vatican is not very representative of what most Catholics believe or practice.

Of course, we also remembered that it is possible to be gay and have faith! We can work with religious students to help them understand that many of their queer peers might still be seeking out that faith and community the same as anyone else.

For me, as an atheist who often offers staunch challenges to religiously-affiliated institutions, it was really enlightening to hear all the different ways people are still working in those environments to promote queer equality. Often times the ideal is not practical, but we must all still work towards what we can accomplish in our given circumstances.

…

This was only one little session from the day. I can’t wait to see what else I will learn this weekend. It truly is a remarkable place to be. It’s actually refreshing to be squeezing in time to write to give my voice a break!

More Creating Change updates to come!

The question: Can a university deny recognition to a student organization that refuses to abide by the university’s nondiscrimination policy for religious reasons? The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide whether the Christian Legal Society can be recognized at UC’s Hastings College of Law and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale while discriminating based on sexual orientation.

I find this question insulting.

Ignore what I just typed and consider this question: Can a university deny recognition to a student organization that refuses to abide by the university’s nondiscrimination policy? Yes. That is the point of having a nondiscrimination policy. If the university is committed to nondiscrimination, then the university gets to decide not to fund (endorse) groups who don’t follow suit. It doesn’t mean those students can’t go there, or gather, or meet, or do whatever. It just means that until their policies match the open and fair policies of the university, they don’t get funding or resources (like space). Any student who pays in should have access; if you don’t allow all students, then you don’t get all students’ money. I don’t know why that’s not the end of the conversation. I don’t know how it’s gotten this far.

Why is the answer any different “because of religious reasons”? It shouldn’t be. It’s really that simple. But this is the USA, isn’t it?

This case is going to be long and ugly. Here are some of the ridiculous claims that will come up:

The policy interferes with our free practice of religion. It’s a violation of our rights.

No. It’s not. See above. Like Alex pointed out, this isn’t about rights. It’s about money. Access to student funds = access for students. Gay and nonbelieving students help pay into that pool of money, so they should have full access to how it is spent. It’s the group’s right to believe what they want. It’s even their right to discriminate. But they don’t have a right to discriminate and get money from the university.

Here’s an actual quote from the Chronicle article from Kim Colby, senior counsel for the Christian Legal Society’s advocacy division:

Public universities shouldn’t single out Christian student groups for discrimination.

Ha! Guess what! They’re not. Every single group gets to abide by the same nondiscrimination policies. The only reason the Christian groups feel targeted is because they’re the only ones trying to openly discriminate.

Gays wanting to marry is “special rights”, but Christian groups wanting to not have to abide by the same policies as everybody else is freedom? Nice try.

Here’s a third ridiculous argument that will be heard:

If we let in gays and atheists, they’ll “destroy the integrity of the society.” We could end up with officers who don’t share our beliefs!

Two questions. Why would students join a group that completely conflicts with what they believe? (Honestly, there probably are some self-hating gays that might actually want to join the group, and I bet the group would be happy to have them!) Why would the group elect officers that they don’t think will lead them?

It’s a strawman if I ever saw. It’d be like if I said I’m going to go join the Republican party so I can infiltrate them and dismantle everything they stand for. It’d be nice if I could do that, but who do I look like, Stephen Colbert?

What this really comes down to is using. These groups want money and access from the university without abiding by university policies. Religion should have nothing to do with it, and the fact that we’ve let it shows what a huge problem we have with religion in society.

As I said before, people are free to believe whatever they want and discriminate against whoever they want… but not on my dime.

I want to specify that I’m not talking about schools with loose affiliations to certain religious organizations, but schools like Wheaton College, Liberty University, Bringham Young University, and Oral Roberts University where religious belief dictates campus policy. These include rules for what students can and cannot do on campus (or even what information they can or cannot access), rules for what professors can teach, oaths that all students and staff are expected to take regarding what they believe and do not believe. By letting beliefs dictate knowledge instead of the other way around, these schools inherently lack the open critical exploration that the highest standards of academia demand. They have a right to exist, they have a right to do what they please, but I don’t think they should be immune to critique from academics for the learning environments they create (or rather, don’t create).

News this week from Calvin College in Michigan demonstrates just how limiting this set-up can be not only in the professional lives of the school’s community members, but in their personal lives as well. Here’s what happened:

College employees received a memo last week saying the Board of Trustees has revisited issues surrounding the college’s position on homosexuality, concluding it is “unacceptable” for faculty and staff to teach, write or advocate on behalf of the issue.

Where to begin? How about the fact that homosexuality isn’t an issue; it’s a phenomenon. I don’t know how you properly study or teach communications, education, biology, psychology, sociology, social work, art, music, English, writing or any kind of history without including homosexuality, yet those are all majors at Calvin College. The American Psychological Association just published an important review of scientific studies about the dangers of trying to suppress homosexuality, but I guess understanding human nature according to scientific research is not acceptable at Calvin College.

Of course not:

The college in 2008 affirmed its commitment to the Christian Reformed Church’s position on homosexuality: that the practice is sinful, but a person’s orientation is not. The board formed the Homosexuality and Community Life Working Group to discuss the implications of the college and church position and how it relates to the day-to-day life in the college.

See, it doesn’t matter what knowledge tells us about these issues, because the school will continue to follow what the Church says. The Church can say whatever it wants, but such untruths are even more dangerous in the hands of an institution of higher education. The Church just says what to believe, but then the college actually prevents the dispensation of any information that might counter subscribing to that belief. How can such a school have any dignity or claims to academic discipline? We only study that which doesn’t run counter to what we believe. Then how do you ever grow or learn anything new?

And just belonging to such a community is toxic:

The trustees in May revisited the topic and stated expectations for the faculty, including that advocacy by faculty and staff both in and out of the classroom is unacceptable.

So now, a place of work is dictating what its employees can do (or in this case, possibly even what they can be) in any part of their lives. In fact, it would be the school’s right (because of its religious designation) to fire any employees, regardless of their esteem and possibly even tenure, if they do not comply with the policies. (Many such schools include some kind of oath or pledge to the school’s belief system in job contracts employees are required to sign.) Duty to the Church comes before any sense of duty to knowledge or academia:

The board says there are cases where academic integrity will “require acquainting students with alternate views. However, the position of the church and the college should be clearly and sympathetically presented, and advocacy of homosexual practice and same-sex marriage is not permitted.”

I read that as saying that any teachers who even suggest the position is not totally merited (in other words, who don’t present the position “sympathetically”), are in violation of the policy.

These kind of policies might be the exception, but they still set a precedent! If I had studied music education at Calvin College, I might have gotten the same course of instruction regarding how to be an effective teacher (minus all that appreciation of teaching to diversity I got in my sociology classes). However, knowing that there are some facts that the college refuses to acknowledge tarnishes academic standards across the board.

Institutions either have academic integrity and academic freedom or they don’t. There should be no room for exceptions. Schools that try to make such exceptions should never develop competitive academic reputations. I would go so far as to suggest that by accrediting these institutions the same as others, the value of all schools’ accreditation is compromised. If they teach beliefs, they’re houses of religion; if they teach knowledge and critical thinking, they’re schools. There isn’t room to have it both ways.

I’m just one young professional with one unpopular opinion, but I will say it here and without hesitation: by humoring these schools that have questionable approaches to academics, we are doing a huge disservice to education in our nation. It’s not working and it has to change.

Earlier this month, I wrote about Thio Li-ann, a law professor from the University of Singapore who had been invited to a visiting professorship at the NYU School of Law.  She has openly expressed her anti-gay views, advocating that same-sex behavior should not be decriminalized, and mocking the LGBT community with comments like anal sex is “like shoving a straw up your nose to drink.”

Well, it seems she has declined to come.

Last week, the Dean of the NYU School of Law published an open letter to the NY Times.  In it, he explains how the situation went down.

I am writing to let you know that Professor Li-ann Thio informed me today that she is canceling her Fall visit to NYU Law School as a Global Visiting Professor as a result of the controversy surrounding her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights. She explained that she was disappointed by what she called the atmosphere of hostility by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes. The Law School will therefore cancel the course on Human Rights in Asia and the seminar on Constitutionalism in Asia, which she had been scheduled to teach.

At Inside Higher Ed, they obtained a copy of Thio’s resignation letter:

As an Asian woman whose legal training has spanned the finest institutions in both East and West, I believe I would have something of value to offer your students. However, the conditions no longer exist to proceed with the visit, given the animus fueled by irresponsible misrepresentation/distortions and/or concerted invective from certain parties. Friends and colleagues have also expressed serious concerns about my safety and well-being.

I think this situation illuminates two important points about life on college campuses:

1. Faculty are just as responsible for the campus climate as anyone else on campus.  They can contribute to it and detract from it.
2. Faculty have a responsibility directly to their students.  Being a knowledgeable expert in a field is not enough; how a professor treats students and how a professor applies that expertise publicly counts too.

I think there is this myth in higher education that the faculty are just there to teach and do research while the student affairs staff “takes care” of everything else affecting the students.  Student affairs staff are there to provide all the cushy, comfortable stuff while the faculty are there to dispense the hard knowledge.  Why student affairs staff deserve more respect as educators is a post for a different day.  Faculty need to better understand that their presence has a bigger impact than publishing papers and handing out grades.

I’m quite proud of the students at NYU’s School of Law.  They made a bold statement.  They didn’t just say Thio’s beliefs offend us and we don’t want her here.  They went a step farther and said We choose not to learn from her.  They recognized that her words are hurtful and do not abide with the standards of inclusion at the foundation of their educational experience.  If I were to ever need a lawyer, I would now feel more comfortable hiring an NYU graduate because those students have demonstrated that they don’t just want to be lawyers; they care about justice.

I think this episode also speaks to the importance of lifelong learning.  Thio seemed to assert that the breadth of her knowledge was good enough, but the students said that it was not.  Even though this situation is not about religion (though we aren’t sure what exactly informs Thio’s beliefs about homosexuality), it relates to the point at the very core of this blog.  It’s not just enough to have views; a person needs to be able to defend those views.

Much like the conservative religious right in the United States, Thio tried to play the Victim card.  She claims that she’s the one hurt because people did not respect her belief.  Again, this confuses respecting the right to believe and respecting actual beliefs.  Her viewpoints and the way she expresses those viewpoints is not worthy of respect from the students at NYU.  That’s her problem, not theirs.  If she is not even willing to show up because she can’t be in a place and hold an unpopular (and disrespectful) point of view without crying foul, then I really wonder what she would even have to teach about human rights.  I’m no expert and certainly no scholar of law, but it would seem to me that she can’t even stand up for her own rights, or she cannot tell the difference between rights and privilege.

I hope other faculty in other fields really take some time to consider this situation.  Look at the effect that a faculty viewpoint had on the campus community before she even set foot on it.  How should faculty regard themselves in terms of how their students see them?  Are there some ways in which students should not see them (as in Thio’s case)?  Are there some ways in which students should see their professors more?  What can faculty do to enhance the learning environment in their classrooms?  In what ways can faculty support an inclusive campus climate beyond the classroom walls?

I think this situation ended the best way it could.  The school maintained its dignity by not rescinding the invitation, the students reacted in a positive way, and Thio was shown for who she really is.

I highly recommend you read the article on Inside Higher Ed.  It describes the situation quite well.

From an article at Inside Higher Ed:

Should someone who teaches human rights back human rights for all people?

That’s the question being raised by some students at New York University’s law school, who are upset that a visiting professor in the fall semester, slated to teach human rights law, is Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore, an outspoken opponent of gay rights. Thio has argued repeatedly and graphically that her country should continue to criminalize gay sexual acts.

In a speech to lawmakers in Singapore, Thio said that gay sex is “contrary to biological design and immoral,” argued that gay people can change their sexual orientation, said that anal sex is “like shoving a straw up your nose to drink,” and rejected arguments based on a diversity of sexual orientations by saying that “diversity is not license for perversity.” (The text of her talk is here, and YouTube video is available in three parts — here and here and here.)

I would always defend the idea of academic freedom. Truly, only by having opposing views do we challenge ourselves to investigate and expand the breadth of human understanding.  I would never expect any kind of censorship in the college classroom.

However, I do see a difference between different points of view and misinformation.  I think that all professors teaching in any field should be held to the same accountability for the claims they make and the lessons they teach.  I would argue that not everything that Thio professes measures up to that intellectual standard, so my claim against her would not be that she shouldn’t be teaching law, but that she should refrain from attempting to teach psychology, sociology, or biology.

For example, Thio would probably struggle to find research that supports her claim that gay sex is contrary to biological design.  If anything, she is dreadfully close to Ray Comfort territory.  I would counter such a claim with an article published last month demonstrating plenty of evidence that homosexual behavior is evolved and furthers the survival of a species.

Her claim that gay sex is immoral is totally an opinion, but not a very reasonable one given how much evidence there is demonstrating the psychological damage incurred when trying to change a person’s orientation.  All of the top psychological and psychiatric organizations (such as the APA, among others) condemn such reparative therapy and hold that sexual orientation cannot be changed (here is the NGLTF’s Challenging the Ex-Gay Movement information packet).  By suggesting otherwise, she is essentially espousing lies to further her agenda.

That is the problem that I see with “Academic Freedom.”  We humor claims and are afraid to challenge them.  We confuse views with facts.  We favor public opinion over scientific opinion.  In many ways, the same folks who use “Academic Freedom” to protect their bias also depend on religious privilege (the undeserved respect of beliefs) to do the same.  When challenge arises, they are quick to call themselves victims of  intolerance (see Victim Meme) with little regard to the intolerance they promote.

Another great example of such abuse of academic freedom is Robert P. George, a law professor at Princeton University who also happens to be Chairman of the Board for the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  In a recent “interview,” (I use quotes because it is in a publication whose President is on the board of NOM, so not a whole lot of cutting-edge journalism taking place here), George tells us what the fight for marriage equality is really all about:

It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.

Later in the interview, George talks about how he challenges the assumptions his students make.  My question is: who challenges the assumptions George makes?  Who is holding him accountable for claims like “there is something uniquely good and morally upright” about heterosexual marriage?  How does he defend that claim?  And similarly, how does he defend his claim that same goodness is not apparent in same-sex relations (or “sodomitical” acts, as he calls them, without prejudice, I’m sure)?  Truthfully, his words (and support of NOM) are detrimental to the LGBT community, so where are the all the social scientists that could refute these “correct” views of his?

Academic institutions are the places where such controversy are supposed to unfold.  Tradition is not proof of anything, and I think we all have a duty to hold fellow scholars accountable.  Academic freedom, I would argue, is not a freedom from being challenged as Thio and George might like to claim; academic freedom is the freedom to challenge notions.

Thio and George should be free to teach, but when they teach untruths based on their personal agendas, I think we have a responsibility to call them out on it instead of turning the other way.

Here is some simplicity:

Respect people for their sexual orientation.

Respect people for their gender identity.

We haven’t achieved either as societal norms.  We’ve managed to get respect for people in spite of their sexual orientation (“love the sinner, hate the sin,” “don’t ask, don’t tell”).  We are further behind with gender identity.  We presume to know better how to identify people than they know how to identify themselves.  When I decided to begin identifying with gender-neutral pronouns, many resisted this idea.  I don’t push it, but I still prefer it.  For me, it’s as simple as, “I don’t want to be identified by the gender binary,” but for others, it might be a complete mindfuck (thinking of a synonym for “mindfuck” is also a mindfuck).

That’s why I think practical education is so important.  It’s very easy to know a lot of facts about sexual orientation and gender identity (or any aspect of social justice), but it’s the ability to apply that learning.  What does it look like to understand, respect, and accommodate?  It’s a lot more challenging in practice.

The University of Vermont just took a big step to accommodate a simple aspect of respect.  UVM has implemented new software that allows students to identify a preferred name and pronouns for internal matters without affecting external records.  In other words, faculty and staff can see how a person prefers to be referred to around campus without endangering the legal protection or financial aid of that student.  It is really quite brilliant, but it was a rigorous process to redesign the software to allow for such an accommodation.  For as challenging as the solution might have been, the outcome is a more welcoming environment for trans students.  Respect isn’t easy to achieve in practice, but it is always worth pursuing.

Here’s a quick roundup of some other LGBT-advancement efforts from other college campuses in just the past month:

Harvard has endowed a visiting professorship in LGBT studies, the first of its kind.

The San Jose State LGBT Center, which just opened last year, has been bequeathed $1 million dollars.

UC Berkeley has launched the Philip Brett LGBT Fund, an endowed fellowship for graduate LGBT-related research.

North Dakota’s Board of Education banned sexual orientation discrimination at all 11 of ND’s public schools.

Progress is happening all around us, but I think we all need to be proactive about holding people accountable regarding how we treat each other.  Respecting and embracing diversity only serves the human experience in a positive way.  It might be challenging at times, but who could really object to learning how to better appreciate other people?

Seeking a post-gender society (The Michigan Daily)

The article focuses on two trans students, and discusses their experiences quite well.  I was slightly dismayed by the implication that all trans people must or will undergo sexual reassignment surgery, but that aside, I thought it portrayed them in a very fair light.

A lot of my friends have been struggling with my decision to identify with gender-neutral pronouns, and I hope this article might offer a bit more insight into that decision.  Gender is totally socially-constructed, and not all of us fit perfectly into the definitions of “man” and “woman”; in fact, most of us don’t.  In fact, 1 in every 2000 births does not even fit into the sexual dichotomy of “male” and “female.”  Even though I relate the most with a masculine presentation, there are many times when my behavior might be perceived as effeminate or unmanly or simply ungendered.  For this reason, I don’t think I completely fit into the gender-binary, and I prefer that the way people refer to me not force my identification as “he.”

I love the way Mak describes himself in the article:

“The way I look at my own gender is that I am post-gender,” Mak said. “I think of myself as sort of a synthesis of various gender stereotypes and roles.”

These are complicated issues, and I don’t expect it to make perfect sense to everyone.  Still, I think we are a happier, healthier society when we work to better appreciate difference instead of forcing conformity.  There are a ton of beautiful identities that exist beyond the gender binary, and I feel like we are selling ourselves short by disregarding them.  We need to recognize our own gender and the effect we let it have on our lives so that we can work towards existing beyond it.  Life is too short to worry about conforming just for the sake of conforming.

My esteemed colleague Gabe Javier made a great observation in the piece:

“Gender is like the air we breathe,” said Gabriel Javier, senior assistant director at the Spectrum Center. “We do not notice it in our everyday lives until someone points it out.” But in the everyday lives of students, it is constantly being pointed out in the way we choose to dress, the bathrooms we use, the dorm hall we live in and the way our peers treat us.

Gender can be such a burden, and many of us do not even realize all the many ways we force ourselves to fit into these norms.  I hope those of you who have questions regarding my choice to use gender-neutral pronouns please feel comfortable asking them, but also be respectful of identities that are different from your own.  Tolerance is better than hate; acceptance is better than tolerance; respect is what we all deserve.

I have always been concerned about institutions of higher education who have affiliations so strong with religious organizations that the doctrine dictates the academics.  In my mind, some of them border more on education-affiliated churches than religiously affiliated universities.  Are they teaching knowledge or beliefs?  There is a difference.

At any rate, what I think makes most universities strongholds of academia is academic freedom–a dedicated pursuit of knowledge.  That pursuit cannot always be unbiased, but I hold the most respect for scholars who work to be objective.  (Intelligent design is “cart before the horse” pseudo-science and therefore has a motive and cannot be objective, so I have no pity for all those professors who were “expelled” in Expelled.)

So, today, I saw this video (hat tip: Towleroad):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385ySuJEaIA

Here is a woman who is trying to advocate against academic freedom on the basis of her religious values.  State Rep. Byrd thinks that “controversial behaviors” should not be studied at the university, and if they are, that the state should have some sort of subjective input as to what it will finance and what it won’t.  It shouldn’t be surprising that she’ll be partnering up with the Christian Coalition in her crusade against the gays and perverts.

While there is obvious heterosexism motivating her point of view (since queer theory is important to the understanding of everybody‘s sexuality and gender identity), this is more of a case of values trying to trump knowledge.  Her understanding of why anyone might study things such as male prostitution (which could have important sociological and healthcare impacts) or oral sex (which is perhaps more widely practiced than Rep. Byrd would like to admit) suggests she does not even appreciate the importance of university research.  She is more concerned with dictating “morals” than pursuing knowledge.

This is disturbing, and we cannot stand for it.

The university needs to pursue all kinds of research and should not be held to scrutiny by uninformed (and untenured) lawmakers.  If lawmakers intercede at all, it instantly destroys the university’s reputation for providing objective, unbiased research.  What’s next?

“We don’t need women’s studies; women and men now have equal rights.”
“We don’t need any of the ethnic studies, because we already know everything we’re going to know about each culture.”
“In fact, let’s not have any support resources for any of those groups.  Women, ethnics, the disabled, and gays deserve no special rights or accommodations on college campuses.”

We know that’s where this could go.  As someone who works with a variety of underrepresented populations on a college campus, I know the importance of making sure they have the support they need to be successful students.  Women, people of color, people with disabilities, and members of the queer community face many unique challenges specifically because of their identities in our society, and everybody needs to learn how to better support them and include them equitably in society.  There are tomes of research that support these efforts.

Let’s not open the Pandora’s Box of letting values subjectively dictate what a university can and cannot do.

“Judge Says Colleges’ Bias Policy Does Not Impede Rights of Christian Student Groups” (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Here’s the gist.  The college said they were going to protect gays.  The Christian student group said they were going to discriminate against gays.  The college said, “No.”  The Christian student group said, “How dare you!  We’re suing!”  The judge said, “Tough.”

Pure, simple.  Fairness and justice.

The comments below the article are interesting.  The world of higher education tends to be more liberal-minded, but there are still folks accusing the judge of using “bigotry against Christians.”  My favorite comment was #9:

I may be wrong, but in order for Southworth to apply, all students would have to have access to participate in the group (the definition of public forum). The group chose to exclude a portion of the campus population. The college isn’t disputing the student group’s right to hold their viewpoint, but rather their decision to exclude other students based on viewpoint. Of course, this may be one of those situations where the decision rests on whether there are any supreme court retirements in the next couple of years.

I also encourage you to read #18:

As a defender of diversity and a director of a Black student center, it is my hope that every student on my campus walks through the doors of my office. Get over your conservative fear and visit one of these centers that you seem to know so much about some day and expose yourself to the truth.

Carson in #20 explains the rules and processes quite well, and I particularly enjoyed this line:

The argument that religious groups can turn-away folks based on the first amendment (or any other constitutional amendments) would also mean that racial and gender discrimination would also be permitted….wouldn’t it?

One last excerpted comment: Kirk, #35:

Furthermore, there are many, many gay people who would love to be part of Christian groups.

How sad that Christians today cannot even live up to the low standards of our legal system.

My own comment is #47.

It’s engaging discussion if you have the chance to read through it!

When you’re trying to form a chapter of a gay fraternity at a huge state university in the heart of Texas, that is a little more groundbreaking.

Here’s the article: “Students working to grow UT’s first gay fraternity.”

Delta Lambda Phi is a fine organization, and I am proud to currently serve as a community advisor for one of its chapters.  Considering there is only one other chapter in all of Texas, what these young gentlemen are doing at UT Austin is both courageous and commendable.  If you know of a DLP chapter at a university near you, do your best to cheer them on!  They are a wonderful support structure for young gay and bisexual men on college campuses.

» Learn more about UT Austin’s LGBT Campus Climate through the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index.

» Learn more about Delta Lambda Phi.

I get a lot of news about LGBT issues in higher education, so expect a lot of little tidbits like these.

Here’s the article, err, the article about the article: “Woman Claims College ‘Turned’ Her Gay”

Basically, this young woman at McGill University (which is in Montreal, so that automatically gives it like 20 bonus gay points) claims that the culture of college makes it hard to “keep your rigid heterosexuality intact.”

It goes on with all the same old nonsense about “how people behave sexually…is largely determined by society and not by nature.”

To that I say post hoc, ergo propter hoc! It is a ridiculous conclusion that completely belies a valid understanding of sexual orientation.  Just because a person, such as a sheltered young woman going to college for the first time, is all of a sudden encouraged to explore her sexuality further does not mean her sexuality changed.

The entire idea is judgmental, because it suggests that one set of behaviors is somehow wrong or misguided or unhealthy.  If poor little Anna Montrose hadn’t been in that scary liberal environment of wild abandon, she might still be perfectly straight!  This should be a lesson to all young women not to watch so much of The L Word!

Could it be that Montrose was never perfectly straight, but she was just never in an environment where she felt she could safely explore her non-straight tendencies?  Is it possible that fully understanding one’s own sexual identity despite the expectations of society is actually… a good thing?  Is it outside the realm of possibility that this whole article takes advantage of a young woman’s naïveté simply to promote artificial scare tactics (aka ignorance through fear) about people who are not heterosexual?

In hindsight, I knew I was gay when I was like 13.  College was just the first time I realized “it’s okay to be me.”  How horrid.