Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Discovering the path to lesbian gay bisexual transgender support at a religious institution
(USC Thesis Other)
Discovering the path to lesbian gay bisexual transgender support at a religious institution
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 1
DISCOVERING THE PATH TO LESBIAN GAY BISEXUAL TRANSGENDER SUPPORT
AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
by
Kafele J. Khalfani
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2019
Copyright 2019 Kafele J. Khalfani
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 2
DEDICATION
This is dedicated to the next wave of students who hope to explore their sexuality and
spirituality freely and with full support of their institutions. And to the staff and faculty who will
support and guide these students through their journey.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
While this dissertation journey felt like a solo adventure, I have been supported by many
people. First, I have to thank my chair, Dr. Courtney Malloy, for sticking with me throughout
this long process. Your insight and guidance has been amazing. To my committee – Dr. Kathy
Stowe and Dr. Kristan Venegas – thank you for your supportive feedback and encouragement.
I had many cheerleaders and supporters who in a number of ways helped me to achieve
this goal: Dr. Shelley Adams, Dr. Allison Anders, Dr. Ashley Barton, Jeanette Bradeen, Dr.
Cynthia Davalos, Dr. Ivan Evans, Dennis Hicks, Michellena Lakey, Heather Lang, Dr. Diane
LeGree, Lourdes Maldonado, Dr. Salvador Mena, Dr. Tonantzin Oseguera, Audrey Pusey, Dr.
Christie Rainey, Dr. Lissa Ramirez-Stapleton, Dr. Marcela Ramirez-Stapleton, Dr. Stephen Rice,
Dr. Emily Sandoval, Dr. Nicki Schuessler Veloz, Dr. James Smith, Dr. Shaun Travers, Mary
Tregoning, Stacy Wilson, Dr. Maria Woodruff, Dr. Jacques Zalma.
To the Doctoral Support Center (thanks for those write weekends/retreats and the
snacks).
To my family, especially my Mother and cousin, Nadiyah Kelly, for your help during the
last semester.
To my son, Nick, who was mortified of ever having to research and write a dissertation, I
say “if I can do it, you can do it!”
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Importance of this Study 15
Definitions and Terms 16
Delimitations 17
Limitations 18
Organization of Chapters 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Identity Development 19
Spiritual Development 21
Sexual Identity Development 23
Challenges to the Intersection of Spirituality and Sexual Identity 27
Factors Discouraging LGBT Programs at Religious Institutions 28
Theoretical Framework 32
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Human Development 32
Organizational Saga 37
Summary 38
Chapter Three: Methodology 39
Sample 40
Data Collection 40
Interviews 41
Document Review 43
Data Analysis 43
Ethical Considerations 44
Chapter Four: Findings 45
Findings 45
What were the strategies used to create and realize a more inclusive space for LGBT
students? 45
What were the catalysts that led to programmatic changes at SAU? 59
What Were the Challenges Faced by Stakeholders at SAU to Implement Programming and
Services for LGBT Students? 62
Summary 65
Chapter Five: Discussion 66
Summary and Discussion 67
Organizational Saga 67
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model of Identity Development 70
Critical Success Factors 70
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 5
Implications for Practice 72
Lessons Learned 72
Increase Quantity of Interviews to Include Faculty and Student Perspective 73
Review Additional Documents 73
Conduct Similar Research AT More Than One Site 73
Personal Take Away 73
Additional Research is Still Needed in the Area 74
Conclusion 74
References 76
Appendix A: Interview Questions 85
Appendix B: Recruitment Email/Letter 87
Appendix C: Consent Form 88
Appendix D: Historical Timeline 90
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participants 42
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Depiction of Bronfenbrenner’s model of human development (Landon, 2014). 33
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 8
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to uncover the challenges, behaviors and strategies at St. Aelred
University that allowed for the creation of supportive programs for their lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender students. This study was guided by three research questions: (1) What were the
strategies used to create and realize a more inclusive space for LGBT students; (2) What were
the catalysts that led to programmatic changes at SAU; and (3) What were the challenges faced
by stakeholders at SAU to implement programming and services for LGBT students. Methods
included face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with St. Aelred stakeholders and document
review of publicly available documents from the institution.
The findings revealed the development of several inclusive strategies including specific
training on LGBT issues, partnerships and collaborations with faculty and campus ministry,
assessment of campus climate, and recruiting and training allies. SAU was also successful at
strengthening student organizations, creating inclusive events that celebrate queer culture and
developing an inclusive non-discrimination policy for the campus.
For success in replicating programs and services for LGBT students, it is recommended
that higher education professionals work to integrate campus ministry into efforts, encourage
cross-departmental collaboration, and include and empower allies in change efforts.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Research shows lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students continue to face
discrimination and harassment in both secondary and postsecondary school settings (Gay,
Lesbian and Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2015; Rankin et al., 2010). For instance, a
2016 report from GLSEN states that nearly 85% of LGBT students have been the victims of
harassment in middle and/or high school (Kosciw, Greytak, Giga, Villenas & Danischewski,
2016). This includes verbal harassment, physical assault, and exclusion from groups. Robinson
and Espelage (2011) found that middle and high school students who identified as LGBTQ were
victims of cyber-bullying at rates significantly higher than their straight-identifying classmates,
and these same students missed school at higher rates. Russell, Ryan, Toomey, Diaz, and
Sanchez (2011) remarked on the pressure for students, boys especially, to conform to ideals of
gender. When students deviate from this ideal, in-school victimization increases (Russell et. al.,
2011).
As LGBT students transition to institutions of higher education, they continue to face
discrimination. According to Rankin (2005), as many as one-third of undergraduate LGBT
students have experienced harassment including verbal threats, physical assaults, and anti-LGBT
graffiti written on walls. A study by Gortmaker and Brown (2006) found that 78% of students
who had come out and 82% of closeted students surveyed reported hearing derogatory
comments, stereotypes, or disparaging jokes about lesbians and gays from other students.
Furthermore, Collier, Perrin, and McGowan (2006) suggested that many LGBT students
experience discrimination in non-supportive university settings where appropriate actions are not
taken to address either discrimination or students’ concerns. For example, Collier et al. (2006)
described an incident in which posters for sexuality week were defaced by Christian
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 10
fundamentalists, and students were harassed by protesters. This was followed by a slow response
from university administration to address the behaviors. Also noted was a situation at a different
institution where two graduate students in social work field placements were denied their first
assignments and referred to a new location based on their sexual orientation. This was
exacerbated by a faculty member who offered no support and who held homophobic beliefs,
causing the students to withdraw their objections to the field placements for fear of reprisal
(Collier et al., 2006).
Discrimination is often compounded by identity crisis when LGBT students attend faith-
based institutions in accordance with their religious beliefs. Students at religious institutions may
often find an environment that supports spiritual discovery, service to others, and student groups
who promote spiritual exploration (Cherry, De Berg, & Porterfield, 2001). However, they do not
often find the same spaces for exploration of their sexual identity development, especially if they
identify as LGBT.
Killelea McEntarfer (2011) and Yoakam (2006) found that for many LGBT students who
attend a faith-based college or university, expression of religion and sexuality are often at odds
as they are expected to compartmentalize their identities. When students are forced to choose an
identity, the dissonance between religious beliefs and sexual identity create conflicts that can
have severe effects on their personal lives, spiritual growth, and educational development
(Poynter & Washington, 2005). These conflicts of faith and sexuality lead to deleterious
activities, including internalized and externalized homophobia, vocal opposition to people and
institutions of faith, thoughts of self-harm, and, in the worst of cases, suicide (Shields, Whitaker,
Glassman, Franks, & Howard, 2011). Moreover, during times of crisis, people often fall back on
their faith to find comfort, guidance, and answers (Hindman, 2002). However, when the crisis is
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 11
caused by a sexual identity that is at odds with faith, students are often left with few coping
choices.
Background of the Problem
College students thrive in environments where they feel supported and are encouraged to
explore all areas of their identity development. During this time, there is discovery of self and the
establishment of new paradigms and new personal boundaries (Hindman, 2002) often predicated
on acceptance of identity (Marcia, 1980). Areas that are typically explored during the college
years include racial and ethnic identity, sex, gender, gender expression, socioeconomic status,
political beliefs, spirituality, and sexual orientation.
Institutions of higher education generally seek to holistically support students, but rare is
the religiously-affiliated college environment where both faith and non-traditional sexual
orientation may be formed, explored, and celebrated (Capehart-Meningall, 2005; Love & Talbot,
1999).
When gay and lesbian students come out, they may experience discrimination, overt and
covert bias, denial of existence, and other negative experiences caused by homophobia and
heterosexism (Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000). The stigma and rejection sometimes associated
with identifying as homosexual can create feelings of guilt, secrecy, and isolation (Troiden,
1988). Being perceived or labeled as LGBT or the mere association with members of the
community can lead to victimization at school, an increase in risky sexual behavior, substance
abuse and/or increased likelihood of homelessness (Halady, 2013). The rejection and loss of
support by others that comes from a negative reaction to coming out can cause individuals to
seek comfort, connection, or escape through unsafe sexual activity, drugs, and alcohol. Perhaps
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 12
unsurprisingly, students who identify as LGBT are four times more likely to commit suicide and
four times more likely to sustain injuries that require hospitalization (Halady, 2013).
Previous research demonstrates colleges and universities are very well suited to ensuring
positive outcomes for their LGBT students (Gold & Stewart, 2011; Hindman, 2002; Love, Bock,
Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005). Universities can support positive identity development and
reduce harassment and discrimination when they create LGBT student organizations, ally
programs, and resource centers (Rankin, 2005; Ryan, 2005). In fact, research has suggested that
participation in such activities promotes a better understanding of one’s own sexual and gender
identity (Renn, 2007). Additionally, public allies can help to dispel misconception, promote
positive group identification, and spur others to participate in helping to create an inclusive
campus (Poynter & Tubbs, 2007).
Despite the promise and success of LGBT resource centers, student organizations, and
ally/safe space programs, it is uncommon to find them in faith-based university settings (Love,
1998; Yoakam, 2006). One challenge is resistance from university administrators to offer full
recognition to these students and organizations (Killelea McEntarfer, 2011). Full recognition
allows access to funding for programming, the ability to reserve meeting space, and to publicly
recruit members (Love, 1998; Ryan, 2005). This recognition is often at odds with the beliefs of
members of the institutional community (faculty, staff, students, and alumni) who do not support
LGBT inclusion. Administrators are also pressured by outside members of the university
community, including the official church of affiliation (Yoakam, 2006). Finally, there is often
limited availability of faculty, staff, or community support for these students, especially as role
models and mentors (Love, 1998; Yoakam, 2006). LGBT staff and faculty may also choose to
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 13
remain in the closet because of lack of legal protection at work and laws that prohibit equal
rights and protection (Zemsky & Sanlo, 2005).
Moreover, recent court rulings, citing an institution’s right to discriminate based on its
religious leanings, have made it possible for colleges to expel students identifying as LGBT
(Jaschik, 2014). At the University of the Cumberlands in Kentucky, a liberal arts institution
affiliated with the Southern Baptist Church, a student reported being expelled merely for
identifying as gay on a social media site (Barton, 2010). Another student at the same institution,
who was forced to leave her house when her mother learned she was a lesbian, feared she would
lose her scholarships and ability to attend college if administrators at her conservative religious
institution learned she was gay (Barton, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
With services including psychological counseling, student organizations focused on
building communities, and potential role models in their faculty and staff, colleges and
universities are well positioned to foster environments that comprehensively support students in
their intellectual, emotional, sexual, and spiritual development (Gold & Stewart, 2011; Hindman,
2002; Love et al., 2005). This is particularly important for LGBT students who face a multitude
of issues. Yet, of the more than 900 religiously-affiliated institutions of higher education in the
United States, only a few have implemented services or resources to address these students’
needs (Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Professionals, 2015). The climate on some
religious campuses is not positive. Examples exist where colleges and universities have expelled
students solely for identifying as LGBT (Barton, 2010; Jaschik, 2014). With traditional college
attendance occurring during a critical time in the identity development of young adults, it is
important to meet developmental needs in order to reduce negative outcomes including
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 14
victimization at school, unsafe sexual behaviors, increased substance abuse, homelessness, or
suicide (Halady, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this study was to learn more about how the stakeholders in one faith-based
institution, St. Aelred University (SAU), implemented strategies and policies aligned with full
recognition of LGBT students and creating a more inclusive environment. By 2016, SAU
developed numerous outreach and support programs and services and had endorsed LGBT and
ally student organizations. Implications from this study will inform policies, procedures and
practices of staff at faith-based institutions, specifically those in student affairs who work with
the LGBT population. Data collected in this study may also inform faculty as they create new
curriculum and update pedagogy to become more inclusive of LGBT students.
In particular, this study examined how the members of the campus community supported
an LGBT student group, created new programs and services to support and educate regarding
LGBT issues, and added sexual orientation and gender identity to its non-discrimination policy.
To this end, the study is guided by three research questions:
1. What were the strategies used to create and realize a more inclusive space for
LGBT students?
2. What were the catalyst that led to programmatic changes at SAU?
3. What were the challenges faced by stakeholders at SAU to implement
programming and services for LGBT students?
Two frameworks inform this study: (a) Clark’s organizational saga framework (Clark,
1972); and (b) Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 2006). The organizational saga framework (Clark, 1972) is used to explain how an
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 15
organization undergoes a fundamental change. This involves shedding a former identity for a
new one that uniquely sets it apart from similar organizations as well as creating a stronger bond
with its constituents. The framework is particularly applicable to this study because SAU is
among the very few religiously-affiliated colleges and universities that have transformed in order
to provide an environment that supports the integration of sexual orientation and religious faith.
The Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development explores how factors like
environment and time impact an individual’s personal growth (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006);
as this study is concerned with the relationship between institutions and identity development,
this model is particularly relevant.
Importance of this Study
Administration, faculty, and staff at religious colleges and universities may learn
strategies and behaviors to overcome existing obstacles to creating an inclusive institution. This
will include learning how to create new programs and services to support spiritual and sexual
identity development while engaging student organizations for peer interactions and leadership
opportunities. The field of student affairs can learn how to support a system where students can
share their faith in public spaces and sexuality in religious spaces (Love & Talbot, 1999).
Universities that adopt this principle may also increase their recruitment and retention as they
would no longer need to expel students and might attract more students with an LGBT-friendly
campus policy.
The students at the institutions will be the greatest benefactors, as they may be able to
explore their faith and their sexual orientation/gender expression in a safe space should college
and university personnel take up the recommendations from this study. As college serves as a
time of great personal growth, a supportive environment that includes specific identities in its
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 16
non-discrimination policy is better poised to allow students to continue their personal
exploration.
Finally, this study expands on the limited literature that explores spiritual identity
development, sexual identity development, the intersection of sexuality and spirituality, and
practices that support the intersected identities of religious LGBT students.
Definitions and Terms
The following terms were used throughout this study:
Advocate: An ally who not only speaks outs to support an idea, need, person, or group to
effect change in a social system, but also uses strategies to influence attitudes, behavior and
decisions to benefit individuals and groups (Worthen, 2012).
Ally: Non-LGBT identified person who supports acceptance and equality for members of
the LGBT community (Woodford, Kolb, Durocher-Radeka, & Javier, 2014).
Closeted: Those who are aware that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender but
have not made a public proclamation of their sexual orientation or gender identity (Gortmaker &
Brown, 2006).
Coming out: the process by which an individual reveals to themselves and others that
their identity falls outside of a heteronormative expectation. A person may come out to an
individual, selective parties, or everyone (Gortmaker & Brown, 2006).
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT): According to Vaccaro (2006), LGBT people
are those who identify on a sexual and gender spectrum with members of their same gender (gay
and lesbian), either genders (bisexual) or express gender in a manner that is different or variant
from their assigned sex at birth (transgender). This may also be expressed as LGB when only
address issues of sexual orientation. Chase & Ressler (2009) also include other assigned terms
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 17
include Queer (Q), Questioning (Q), Intersex (I), Ally (A) which can be expressed at
LGBTQQIA.
Microaggressions: Nadal et al. (2011) examined microaggressions—the intentional or
unintentional comments and actions that serve to marginalize other groups lacking power and
privilege—including terminology that is homophobic, transphobic, or heterosexist to expressed
discomfort of the LGBT experience including rejection from family and friends to religious
institutions supporting anti-gay legislation including Proposition 8 in California, which removed
the right to same-sex marriage (Ballotpedia, n.d.).
Faith-based institution: According to Love (1998), these institutions are colleges and
universities with close ties to or foundational traditions formed by a major religion or church
(Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
Delimitations
The study focused on an institution on the west coast of the United States that is aligned
with the Catholic Church as evidenced by the presence of religious clergy among the faculty and
administrative staff, a mission statement proclaiming the faith, open and active celebration of
that faith, and on-campus events including religions services, observance of religious holidays,
and other artifacts of faith. The college was selected because it meets the criteria for being an
institution undergoing a significant organizational change. The college has specific services and
resources that are intentionally and specifically provided to students who identify as LGBT. The
selected college has at least one LGBT student organization and other artifacts denoting
inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (e.g., safe space programs, educational
programming, and diversity statement).
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 18
The study will be limited to one institution. Participants were senior level student affairs
officers and campus ministry staff. These included the Assistant Vice Presidents for student
affairs and campus ministry, three directors, one assistant director and a graduate student.
Limitations
One potential limitation of the study arises from its reliance on members of the campus
and LGBT community and supporters who are willing and able to participate in the study.
Given the controversial nature of acceptance of LGBT individuals among some conservative
Catholics, some prospective participants did not return requests to participate or declined
when asked. It was also possible that some participants may have found it difficult to be open
and honest during interviews. Additionally, former students, faculty, and staff who may have
been important leaders were no longer at the institution or available to discuss their
participation in the process.
Organization of Chapters
Chapter Two of this study presents a review of literature related to sexual identity,
spiritual development, the benefits of integrating the two, and the organizational saga (Clark,
1973) and Bronfenbrenner frameworks (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Following the review
of the literature, Chapter Three details the research methods and the sampling procedure used to
locate the campus and the study participants.
Chapter Four focuses on the findings of the study. The study concludes with Chapter Five
and an analysis of the findings, implications for the field of student affairs, and recommendations
for future study.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Students who attend a religious college and identify as LGBT face a multitude of
challenges in the form of discrimination and lack of institutional support. While these challenges
may have persisted through their entire educational experience, for many students between the
ages of 18 and 24, college is a time for self-reflection and self-awareness. This period of identity
development is important to maximize growth and minimize interactions and experiences that
would splinter or halt development (Hindman, 2002; Poynter & Washington; 2005).
This chapter presents a review of literature related to the identity development process,
including accepting one’s sexual orientation and spirituality. Second, a rationale for and
strategies to integrate one’s spiritual and sexual identities into a healthy self-image are also
presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the opportunities and obstacles to
including sexuality at religious colleges and a presentation of a framework that may discover
how institutions in similar circumstances have overcome this problem.
Identity Development
During college, existing relationships undergo changes as students have new expectations
from parents, friends, and the educational system (Chickering, 1969). Marcia (1980) described
the discovery or acceptance of an identity as “a self-structure – an internal self-constructed,
dynamic organization of drives, abilities, beliefs, and individual history” (p. 159). Identity
answers the question of “who am I” both internally and to society at large (Josselson, 1996).
Initial study related to one’s identity began with Erikson’s (1959, 1963, 1968) research
on the identity crisis that occurs during adolescence. Erikson suggested that an individual’s
identity is formed throughout their life-cycle and is highly sensitive to factors of age, external
influence, and environment. These are combined with crises that will ultimately form identity.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 20
Individuals will go through a process of personal unveiling, involving a new understanding and
acceptance of who they are. This may involve a period of uncertainty as one lets go of what one
currently knows.
Chickering (1969) found identity development to be a central component of his seven
vector model. For example, one’s understanding of one’s physical self, comfort with one’s
gender and sexual identity as shaped by one’s culture, history and heritage is firmly a part of
establishing identity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). This requires the exploration of sexual
identity through education, interactions, and relationships with others of one’s identity group.
Interactions with others who do not belong to the group or those who knew individuals
previously are also relevant to establishing identity.
Marcia (1980) identified four identity statuses: identity achievement, foreclosure, identity
diffusion, and moratorium. In identity achievement, a person has an experienced decision-
making period. They begin pursuing self-chosen occupation and ideological goals. Individuals
are strong, self-directed, and highly adaptive. During foreclosure, a person maintains a parentally
chosen occupation and parental ideal. They can be viewed as steadfast, rigid, cooperative, and
confirming. Identity diffusion describes an individual with no occupational or ideological
direction who lives carefree and carelessly. Finally, those who are struggling with decisions and
are in identity crisis are considered in moratorium. These individuals are often viewed as being
sensitive, anxiety-ridden, highly ethical, self-righteous, flexible and vacillating (Marcia, 1980).
Finding oneself in an identity crisis or moratorium results in an ill-formed identity and puts one
in a place of being othered or feeling a sense of not-belonging, being excluded, or not wanted.
During college, students may also become aware of their other status based on identity
characteristics and begin to understand the interactions of power and privilege (Chickering &
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 21
Reisser, 1993). The other status can be experienced because of one’s awareness of one’s
oppression. Oppression works structurally to benefit one member or group while severely
disadvantaging another. As a key part of oppression, privilege grants what McIntosh (1988)
deemed unearned entitlements and conferred dominance, both of which allow benefits and
powers over other groups. Privilege takes on many forms pertaining to race, gender, social class,
age, sexual orientation, and religion. Oppression and privilege combine to create systems where
certain identities are presumed to be better.
Spiritual Development
Defining spirituality ranges from communicating with God or a belief in forces greater
than the individual (Love & Talbot, 1999) to spirituality as a component of faith exhibited daily
through actions and attitudes (Hindman, 2002). Fowler (1981) and Love and Talbot (1999)
presented two main frameworks for spiritual development.
Love and Talbot (1999) presented five propositions to illustrate the importance of
spiritual development as part of student development. The propositions take into account
multiple belief systems, including organized religion. The five propositions are a unified sense of
self; the need to transcend; moving from egocentrism (which focuses on self) to cosmocentricity
(which focuses on the whole, others, or society); the ability to commune both with oneself and
others; and an expansion of love, knowledge, and skills found through a search for the meaning
of life. The last proposition calls for a relationship with an all-powerful unknown (Love &
Talbot, 1999). Spirituality developed in this sense requires one to have a strong understanding of
self, how one interacts with and affects others, and a search for continual growth before building
a relationship with the higher power.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 22
Another view on spiritual development was held by Fowler (1981) who stated that
individuals work through six stages of their faith. These stages are intuitive-projective, mythic-
literal, synthetic-conventional, individuative-reflective, conjunctive, and universalizing faith.
Fowler’s stages move through childhood to old age. The first two stages, intuitive-projective and
mythic-literal, occur during childhood where faith is understood from the perspective of parents,
church, or society. Synthetic-conventional finds one in communities of those with like-beliefs
and authority, and deference is given to one’s faith and the leaders within it. After passing phase
three, one becomes more open to encountering and experiencing beliefs and faiths that are not
her/his own and may also begin to question faith. Phase five finds individuals no longer
questioning or trying to prove faith but accepting it as simply faith and finding comfort in its
traditional aspects, stories, symbols, rituals. In the final phase of universalizing faith, belief is an
integrated part of who the person is, and the person lives to help others with no concerns.
Additionally, the concepts of syncretism and religiosity play a role in students’ spiritual
development (Fowler, 1981). Syncretism is the process by which a person, on an individual
level, either incorporates, retains, or rejects the practices, beliefs, and rituals of denominational
faith. Religiosity refers to frequency of church attendance and the importance of religion in one’s
life (Woodford, Levy, & Wells, 2012).
The role of colleges and universities. Hindman (2002) suggested that all universities
and colleges have an obligation to develop spirituality as an integral component of the
knowledge students acquire from the institution. This level of institutional support aids students
in their growth as individuals and as members of the larger community. Additionally, while in
college, students in the individuative-reflective stage experience dissonance where their identity
and religious affiliation come into conflict with each other. Students will begin to doubt their
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 23
faith, move to a more individualistic idea of their faith, and begin to challenge and question that
which they have been taught about their religion and its teachings (Woodford et al., 2012). If
spirituality is a part of collegiate curricular and co-curricular activities, students can both be
challenged and supported through this period.
The positive outcome of a strong spiritual center assists many students while they are in
college. Research has shown that spirituality serves as a key component of the maturation and
development process for students in college (Gear, Krumrei, & Pargament, 2009). Spirituality
can bring solace and comfort in times of trouble and crisis (Love & Talbot, 1999). As college
students seek meaningful experiences as part of their development, spirituality works to make
them better human beings with regards to beliefs, values, ethical considerations, helping others,
and being a positive influence on society (Hindman, 2002).
Another compelling reason for supporting spiritual development in college is research
finding that close to 48% of college students express concerns and instability in their faith,
leading to negative effects on their mental and physical health, destructive and addictive
behaviors, and feelings of lessened self-worth and depression (Gear et al., 2009). During their
time in college, it is important for students to evaluate their faith, both through self-discovery
and interactions with others and society as a whole. This exploration will either strengthen or
lessen their faith, which is important for them to be able to discover and accept their own
individually-developed identity. Those who are strong or become strong in their faith will then
be able to move into another level of their identity, their sexuality.
Sexual Identity Development
Identification and acceptance are commonly referred to as coming out (Gortmaker &
Brown, 2006). As Reynolds and Hanjorgiris (2000) describe:
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 24
[It is] a series of complex cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes. An awareness of
same-sex sexual feelings; initial same-sex sexual encounters; participation in gay,
lesbian, and bisexual subculture; labeling self as gay or lesbian; and disclosing a gay or
lesbian identity to others (p. 37).
During and following this coming out process, many have worked to describe and decipher the
process of forming sexual identity in models similar to those developed based on race and sex.
Bilodeau and Renn (2005) noted the difficulty of employing one model to explain the complexity
of sexual identity development. As such, two models that are the most salient are those of Cass
(1979) and D’Augelli (1994), and, while they are quite different, their points of convergence
articulate the importance of an accepted and supported sexual identity.
Cass (1979, 1984) generated one of the original models for identity development for
sexual orientation. This six-stage model consists of identity confusion, identity comparison,
identity tolerance, identity acceptance, identity pride, and identity synthesis (Cass, 1979). This
was one of the formative theories used for decades to explain how gay identity developed. The
model focused on movement from one stage to another until concluding at identity synthesis.
The first three stages relate one's identity to that of heterosexuals. Identity awareness finds one
becoming aware that one is different. This leads to a comparison of one’s attractions and interest
with those of heterosexuals. Tolerance finds one realizing and acknowledging to one’s self that
one might not be a heterosexual. Through self-reflection, interaction with others, and education,
a person may move to the next stage of identity acceptance. This stage finds them
acknowledging their new identity and looking for community. The pride phase involves an
immersion in their new sexual identity. Education continues, and individuals begin to share their
new identity more widely with others, both familiar and unfamiliar. At synthesis, the individual’s
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 25
sexual orientation is just another part of their identity. This model served as a beneficial guide
and step by step process for understanding identity development; however, the stages described
were essentially the same for everyone who identified as non-heterosexual (Cass, 1979).
D’Augelli (1994) proposed a six-identity process (not stages) including exiting
heterosexuality, developing a personal identity, developing a social identity, becoming an LGB
offspring, developing intimacy, and entering a community. This differs from Cass’ (1979) model
in that the process includes movement in a non-linear manner, and individuals may experience a
process more than once or not at all. The process involves a combination of self-
disclosure/acceptance and coming out to others. Exiting heterosexuality and developing a
personal identity is where one realizes one is not heterosexual and begins to accept and create
one’s own LGB identity.
Sharing this new identity with parents is when one becomes an LGB offspring, while
sharing with friends and others develops the LGB social identity. Once a person begins
interacting with other LGB people in activities, events, and organizations, they enter a
community, and, once they begin to have more personal relationships, they develop LGB
intimacy.
Beyond self-discovery, perceptions of heterosexism and homophobia on campus are
important in LGB identity development. Heterosexism is defined as the assumption that
everyone is heterosexual or should want to engage in a heterosexual relationship. Homophobia is
defined as the irrational fear and hatred of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. Although some studies
have shown that a rationale for homophobia is internal fear that one may have attraction to the
same sex (Lance, 2002), others tend to believe that it is based on ignorance and lack of exposure.
Alternate arguments supporting a theory that contact with LGB students will help to lessen
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 26
hostility have been countered with results showing that such interactions can be negative and
reinforce existing misconceptions. However, intentional and deliberately organized efforts to
make the interactions meaningful can result in decreased hostility (Lance, 2002). Colleges and
universities may be able to create these meaningful interactions through intentional programming
and a curriculum that incorporates support of spirituality and sexuality. The development of an
LGB sexual identity is a long process that involves movement through a number of phases and
may have negative consequences, including discrimination and threats of both external and
internal violence (Cass, 1979; D’Augelli, 1989; 1994, Troiden, 1988). Additionally, the
discovery of acceptance of this new identity may be at odds with existing identities, especially
when related to that of spirituality (Schuck & Liddle, 2001; Hindman, 2002; Barton, 2010).
The role of colleges and universities. Educational entities from K-12 schools to colleges
and universities can play a significant role in the development of sexual orientation identity for
their students, faculty, and staff. Kosciw, Palmer, and Kull (2015) explored coming out and its
effect on personal well-being. Their findings evaluated victimization and its effects on
development. The results found that being out was related to increased incidents of victimization
in schools. With the increased reporting of victimization, however, also came reports of
increased self-esteem and lower rates of depression. They also found that, while being out in
school has negative effects, students reported positive benefits including higher levels of well-
being and academic success. Positive results were more likely to come from students in urban
settings, and higher reports of harassment came from rural areas. Zemsky and Sanlo (2005)
argued that the role of student affairs professionals in a college is to let students know they were
expected and welcome, and programs and services are a key factor to creating an environment
that communicates that message. Worthen (2012) found that schools with supportive programs,
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 27
including a gay-straight alliance, promoted positive attitudes for LGBT students. Young and
McKibban (2014) followed with safe spaces as visible support among faculty and staff to
illustrate support for the LGBT population. Some colleges offer resource centers, which have
been successful with other underrepresented groups in areas of recruitment, retention, and
education (Ryan, 2005). For LGBT students, these centers are key to creating places of
mentoring and support (Sanlo, 2002). Through curriculum, Sanlo (2002) suggested integrated
and interconnected courses based on multi-cultural identities, which would include sexuality and
spirituality. Colleges may specifically have faculty who focus their research on LGBT issues
(Sanlo, 2002; Renn, 2010) and can also serve as advocates for change (Messinger, 2011)
Challenges to the Intersection of Spirituality and Sexual Identity
Challenges often arise when students explore attitudes regarding sexuality, and conflicts
exist when one attempts to celebrate intersected identities as someone who is both non-
heterosexual and an engaged member of a faith community (Finlay & Walther, 2003). The steps
to achieving a spiritual and sexual identity are rooted in the beliefs and values of one’s particular
faith community. Kocet, Sanabria, and Smith (2011) separated religious worldviews into two
groups: progressive and orthodox. Progressives are defined as more inclusive and base their
views on the world as it currently presents itself. This leads them to be more inclusive of LGBT
identities. Orthodox individuals tend to be more conservative, hold narrower perspectives, and be
less supportive of the LGBT community.
This spiritual-sexual intersection is difficult as many faith communities are not receptive
to members of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community (Schuck & Liddle, 2001; Barton, 2010).
As most people are exposed to spirituality long before they discover their sexual identity
(D’Augelli, 1994), many messages given by members of the faith community are important to
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 28
identity development (Maxon & Rosenholtz, 2012; Barton, 2010). When messages and teaching
state that homosexuality is a sin (Schuck & Liddle, 2001), that same-sex attraction is disordered
and sinful (Benoit, 2005), or that one would be damned to hell for one’s identity (Barton, 2010),
individuals tend to hold negative attitudes towards non-heterosexual identities. Upon discovering
that one may be lesbian, gay, or bisexual, feelings of shame, inadequacy, and alienation from
their church community are common (Barton, 2010; Gold & Stewart, 2011). Some
denominations render members of the LGBT community as invisible, ignoring their existence
and driving them into isolation from their faith community (Kocet et al., 2011). In severe cases,
this trauma results in serious depression and, in worse cases, suicide (Shields et al., 2011).
Kocet et al. (2011) presented a four-part framework that starts with incorporating the role
of religion and spirituality in developing identity. Later steps include addressing on-going
conflict with religion, creating a space where spirituality and sexuality are connected as part of
identity and making resources available where identity is supported. This includes deeper
understanding of the importance of religion and religious exploration in a person’s life. There
also needs to be a safe space where students can question their faith and unresolved feelings of
rejection followed by determining how they will express their faith and sexuality. A community
that is supportive of both spirituality and sexuality as a place to connect with others (Kocet et al.,
2011) is the final goal.
Factors Discouraging LGBT Programs at Religious Institutions
Catholic colleges and universities often have to contend with the conflict of their mission
that calls for all humans to be treated with dignity (Yoakam, 2006). Maher, Sever, and Pichler
(2008) attributed this to the evolution of ideals within the Catholic Church that differentiates
between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. This differentiation defines sexual
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 29
orientation as disordered, and sexual activity as sinful. They also leave an allowance for prudent
judgement on how to address the issue. In most cases, that judgment is to not address sexuality.
When this is combined with dogmatic teachings, there is tension for students.
Acceptance of homosexuality at faith-based institutions is often difficult based on
religious dogma related to same-sex attraction. These attitudes tend to be held by more
conservative Protestant denominations including Evangelicals, while Catholic teachings uphold
homosexuality as disordered, but accept the identity, assuming it is not practiced (Woodford et
al., 2012). As many believe that their religion finds the behavior to be inherently wrong, positive
inclusion of LGBT people is difficult. Leaders of faith communities often speak out against
homosexuality and use their pulpits and funds to support initiatives that minimize advancement
of LGBT civil rights (Maxon & Rosenholtz, 2012). Research has shown that those who attend
religious service at high rates also tend to be less accepting of diverse sexual identities
(Woodford et al., 2012).
Administrators are concerned and fearful of the negative reactions that may come from
external sources, including college and university trustees, vocal members of the faith
community, and the general community of the institution (Love, 1998). Additionally, many
students maintain attitudes that are similar to that of the faith leaders, creating environments that
are hostile to students who identify as LGBT (Lance, 2002; Finlay & Walther, 2003). This
results in forms of harassment such as name calling, graffiti, and assault but more harmfully
resulting in negative self-concept and suicide in extreme cases (Shields et al., 2011). When
students are in agreement with their denominations and are taught that homosexuality is wrong,
they are more likely to maintain that sentiment (Woodford et al., 2012).
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 30
When attempting to start an affinity or support group, many LGBT students, faculty,
staff, and allies must contend with multiple obstacles. These barriers include lack of LGBT role
models on campus, fear of coming out due to repercussions ranging from harassment,
termination, or not receiving tenure (D’Augelli, 1989; Messinger, 2011). Group longevity can
struggle as leadership and enthusiasm ebbs and flows based on current students and their
particular passions (Love, 1998; Stotzer, 2009). For LGBT students or any students experiencing
oppression, there is also the added burden of having to fight for their rights while still battling
against the forces, policies, procedures that work to oppress them (Killelea McEntarfer, 2011).
Involvement in an LGBT group as a member or as an officer brings the added
responsibility of having to be out and public. Leaders are often required to be the face of the
community, which brings about higher levels of stress and anxiety as well as making themselves
targets of discrimination and isolation (D’Augelli, 1989; Zemsky & Sanlo, 2005; Renn, 2007).
As they move to bring about change, especially in a hostile university environment, they may
risk alienating themselves from university administrators, faculty, and staff. Due to the nature of
sexual orientation, they may also lack support from parents, friends, and family (Stevens, 2004).
It is because of these reasons that the role of ally is imperative (Love, 1998; Killelea McEntarfer,
2011; Getz & Kirkley, 2006). As an ally, one must also work to understand and confront one’s
prejudices. This is similar to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who must overcome issues of
internalized homophobia as well as other internalized issues that may be based on race, class,
gender, gender identity, gender express, and religion (D’Augelli, 1994; Cass, 1984).
Catholic higher education historical context. American catholic education started in
1789 with the foundation of Georgetown College in Washington, D.C. (Garrett, 2006). Garrett
examined how the schools were originally launched to prepare men to enter the clergy then
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 31
expanded to educate the laity and non-Catholics alike (2006). The colleges and eventually
universities would evolve from original seminal education to a more traditional education by the
late 19
th
century.
Catholic education started to prepare men to become priests starting in the late 1700s.
The 1800 – 1900s saw a number of the original schools failing, but Catholic institutions overall
still performed better than other institutions due to increased interest in higher education and
growing numbers of Catholics in America (Garrett, 2006). As Catholics started to seek newer
skills, the colleges also changed and expanded to offer education focused on industrial skills. By
1887, Garrett notes that one institution, St. Louis University, began offering a traditional
curriculum (2006). The next 100 years would see the colleges and the church in constant debate
over the teachings of theology and philosophy as their main tenants to movement to a more
traditional curriculum to both compete with other like institutions and to receive accreditation
and access to additional funding from federal sources.
In the 1950s and 1960s, over 50 women’s colleges were started that were affiliated with
existing male colleges or other religious orders (Poulson & Higgins, 2003). Later, a number of
these women’s colleges became coeducational institutions. Poulson and Higgins (2003) focused
on the evolution of co-education at Georgetown University, Boston College, and the University
of Notre Dame. As institutions either merged or created their own programs for women in the
1960s, Poulson and Higgins reported that those campuses were able to attract highly competitive
classes as the pool of qualified women was untapped (2003). The shift to co-education also
resulted in numerous gender-based policies related to housing, cleanliness, and visitors. By the
1970s, students argued for more equality which led to co-ed housing and less restrictive roles for
women.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 32
The work of the modern Catholic university is to balance their identity and mission,
which includes a commitment to academic excellence and academic freedom, with a heavy
emphasis and understanding of Catholicism (Estanek, James & Norton, 2006). Estanek, James
and Norton surveyed 55 institutions to learn more about their missions; institutions included a
declaration of their Catholic identity (94.5%); social justice and responsibility for societal
betterment (45%); and a statement on diversity (56%) (2006).
Theoretical Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Human Development
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development examines personal growth
in relation to one’s intersecting environments and the time and frequency with which these
interactions happen. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) defined development as the
“phenomenon of continuity and change in the biopsychical characteristics of human beings, both
as individuals and as groups” (p. 793).
The four main components of bioecological theory are process, person, context and time
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, and Karnik (2009) suggested
proximal processes are components in the proximal environment (people, objects, symbols) that
interact with a developing human on a regular and reciprocal basis. Person refers to the personal
characteristics of an individual; they include age, gender, skin color, or appearance. Resource
characteristics are not readily seen but can be induced by demand characteristics. These include
mental and emotional resources like past experience, skills, or intelligence. These also include
resources like access to good food, housing, strong parenting, and educational opportunity. The
last is force characteristics that include internal factors such as temperament, motivation, and
persistence (Tudge et al., 2009).
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 33
Context contains four systems. The microsystem, or environment, is where the individual
spends a considerable amount of time. Examples include home, school, or church (Tudge et al.,
2009). Exosystems are places where the individual is not but which have an effect on their
development. A macrosystem is a system that encompasses a whole group who share a value or
belief system. Finally, the mesosystem is where systems interact with each other.
Finally, time is broken into three areas. Microtime is a specific activity or interaction.
Meso-time refers to the extent to which the activity or interaction occurred with consistency, and
macro-time notes that developmental processes will vary depending on the person’s age when
the event occurs. In order for development to be supportive, one must engage in specific
proximal activities over a regular period of time. These activities should also increase in
complexity. A pictorial representation of the various stages is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Depiction of Bronfenbrenner’s model of human development (Landon, 2014).
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 34
Many researchers have expounded upon Bronfenbrenner’s work to address issues within
the LGBT community as academic environments and interactions are key to individual
development. These issues have included discrimination, anti-bullying, counseling and
spiritual/sexual identity development.
Bronfenbrenner and the LGBT Community. Bearss (2013) researched working with
LGBT youth in school settings. Bearss also looked at research detailing how religion inhibited
LGBT spiritual development. This included re-directed funds in the early 2000s based on
policies of President George W. Bush, which favored faith-based organizations who tend to not
support programs for LGBT youth. When focusing on youth development, Bearss noted
Bronfenbrenner’s work and linked it to how youth developed in schools, focusing on having
access to competent mental health providers who can work within the family structure. This, in
turn, affects the environment and the current and future well-being of the individual. Bearss
(2013) recommended supportive programs that focus on eliminating bullying and harassment,
gay-straight alliances, forums for LGBT parents, and well-trained teachers and administrators.
Hong and Garbarino (2012) proposed a model for anti-bullying using the ecological
framework focused on reducing negative outcomes for LGBT students. They argued that the
micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-system all affect each other and manifest in an individual’s
consciousness (Hong & Garbarino, 2012). Hong and Garbarino identified mass media and the
community as two environments that affect the individual, even when they do not directly
interact. The macrosystem is multi-generational and socialization is moderated through
structures, including family, academic institutions, places of employment, and politics. They
recommend training for school employees, creation of student groups, observing and updating
policies, and partnerships with organizations that validate LGBT identities. The authors also
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 35
encourage political involvement to create laws that reduce or eliminate harassment based on
protected minorities’ identities.
Exploring the personal benefits that come from being an ally to the LGBT community,
Rostosky, Black, Riggle, and Rosenkrantz (2015) found a number of themes concurrent with
various levels of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). From
this, they created three levels addressing intrapersonal growth, interpersonal connection, and
community/societal contribution. These further developed to increased knowledge and awareness
and upholding values in the level of intrapersonal growth. Increased knowledge included
acknowledging and exploring their privileged identity and growing to appreciate the identities of
others. On an interpersonal level, allies receive a reciprocal benefit of giving support and
receiving support in return. Advocating for others’ rights also creates a strong sense of
community connection and a sense of belonging. Finally, at the community/societal level, allies
find that educating others and being a resource to other heterosexuals is rewarding. Additionally,
being a role model, using social privilege, and taking a stand allows allies to move society
further along and help to make life better for LGBT people.
Bronfenbrenner and counseling. Luke and Goodrich (2015) researched interventions
meant to help counselors to assist the support network (family members, friends, and identified
allies) of the LGBT community. They focused on system theories, which emphasize not just
one’s internal or personal experiences, but also interaction and relationships across multiple
contexts. Their work builds on Bronfenbrenner’s theory to explore ways in which friends,
family, and allies can be supported while they support their LGBT youth. At the microsystem
level, the authors recommend group supports, including gay-straight alliances. At the
mesosystem level, this involves repeated interactions with other parents at school or religious
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 36
leaders in the community. At the exosystem level, there needs to be continued and on-going
training to continually meet the evolving needs of the youth. Counseling supervisors play a
critical role in managing this type of professional development and skill-building for clinicians.
Next, advocacy, as a component of social justice, can affect contextual environment for the
affected youth. Occurring at the macro level, this has the direct effect of managing the socio-
cultural-political context where rules and policy can be maintained, changed, or challenged to
meet the needs of both student and supporters.
Bronfenbrenner, sexuality and spirituality. Vaccaro, Russell, and Koob (2015)
proposed a new model to work with individuals with minoritized identities of sexuality and
gender. Building off Bronfenbrenner, their model uses a strength-based approach and addresses
manners in which people manage stress. The model centers around the individual’s whole
identity of self and includes personality traits, individual strengths, and coping mechanisms.
Next, they built on the macrosystem and exosystem to integrate sociopolitical issues at the local,
regional, and national levels, each bringing about different factors that have an effect on an
individual’s identity. These include organizations, institutions, policies, ordinances, and laws.
They also incorporated the concept of time, which includes interactions, recurring patterns, and
major events of both historical and personal proportions. The time context also includes regularly
occurring events or events that have recently transpired that affect the community.
Using data from the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate Survey (CRSCS),
Rockenbach, Lo & Mayhew (2016) examined the ways in which religious and spiritual climate
affects the experience of LGBT students. They found that while LGBT students do not
experience the same positive perceptions of the campus as their heterosexual counterparts, they
are highly engaged in the interfaith experience and this may be better for the spiritual and
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 37
personal development. Some benefits include the openness to explore different faiths or spaces to
find a home where their dual identities of sexual orientation and spirituality may be better
connected. The research also showed that interfaith spaces might be more conducive to
conversations and expressions that are considered safe for free exploration. The authors
recommend incorporating stories of LGBT student of faith to discuss how spirituality affects
identity development, to show and promote intergroup dialogue, and to create programming to
address intersecting identities. Recommendations included using heterosexual allies to train other
allies.
Organizational Saga
Organizational saga focuses on a unique accomplishment of an institution that transforms
it from a formal space to one that is beloved by its constituents (Clark, 1972). The saga, while
historical, may become embellished to reach an epic scale to become a tale worthy of being told,
celebrated, and embraced. The saga is developed in two stages: initiation and fulfillment. During
the initiation phase, the movement is started by a single individual or a small group of people
who find that the setting is or can be opened. This happens in organizations that are at a point of
crisis where the crisis creates a condition where a new organization can be formed. This allows
for the suspension of past practices and allows for the seeking of new opportunity. Another
criterion for the saga can be when the organization is not in crisis, but is ready for an
evolutionary change.
Fulfillment begins with the expression of the organization’s unique or special story. This
can be generated through personnel, programs, external social bases, student sub-culture, and
imagery of the saga. Personnel, including faculty and staff, must be committed and believe in the
change. They play a vital role in the creation and sustaining of the legend. Programs must be
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 38
visible and have distinct practices, which can include symbols and rituals that help to define what
is unique about the institution. The external social base, mainly alumni, can be strong indicators
for support as they can and do play a role in the uniqueness of the college, but also work to
protect it from changing. Student sub-culture requires support from this population as they bear
the responsibility for maintaining the image of the college. Their beliefs must also be integrated
with those of the faculty and administration. Finally, the imagery of the saga includes ceremonies
and written history and how these are incorporated in the mission and memories of the college.
The organizational saga, when properly implemented, supports students in their own identity
pride and creates a space where they can take pride in the organization (Clark, 1972).
Summary
Overcoming the challenges of college is a difficult task for most students. For those who
attend a religious institution and identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, that task is even harder.
Finding an institution that is supportive and affirming of your sexual orientation is a key aspect
to success as integration of spirituality and sexuality ensure complete student development. In
college, the path to self-discovery is long. Students who have or are discovering their sexual
identity need support from institutions. Additionally, if they ascribe to a specific faith, support
should be given to assist with the integration of the two identities for failure to do so may result
in negative consequences for the student. Using organizational saga and Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Model as a framework, this study examined one particular religiously-affiliated
college that successfully created an environment where LGBT students are fully recognized,
where policies and procedures affirm their existence, and where their history and struggle are
both validated and celebrated.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The LGBT community faces discrimination in education at the secondary and post-
secondary level. When a student attends a religiously affiliated college or university, this
discrimination often continues and creates an environment where s/he lacks supportive
services to navigate spirituality and sexuality. As research has shown, positive interventions
play a strong role in ensuring that college-age students’ development is healthy and holistic
(Hindman, 2002; Gold & Stewart, 2011; Kocet et al., 2011; Worthen, 2012).
The goal of this study was to learn about the challenges one religious campus
encountered in creating programs and services for its LGBT students. This study also sought
to understand the strategies and behaviors utilized by administrators to establish and inform
LGBT-affirming policies, procedures, and practices. This study may be of particular benefit
to student affairs staff and other college personnel. It can additionally inform faculty
members as they create new curriculum and update pedagogy to become more inclusive of
this population.
Using qualitative methods, this study sought to uncover strategies employed by faith-
based colleges and universities to create an environment where LGBT students are affirmed
and have support services. This study answered three research questions:
1. What were the strategies used to create and realize a more inclusive space for
LGBT students?
2. What were the catalyst that led to programmatic changes at SAU?
3. What were the challenges faced by stakeholders at SAU to implement
programming and services for LGBT students?
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 40
Sample
The selected institution, SAU, is a religiously-affiliated school with dedicated programs
and specific services for LGBT students. This includes a student organization and artifacts
supporting inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity like a non-discrimination policy
and safe space program. The institution was located using various manners of searching,
including conversations with current directors of campus LGBT centers, collegiate website
searches, and review of LGBT-friendly college rankings. The school is a private not-for-profit
institution offering bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate’s (including juris and philosophy). Total
Enrollment is slightly below 9,000 students with slightly over 5,700 undergraduates. More than
51% of the students identify as white. Located in the Western United States, the Catholic
University works to educate students on an intellectual and spiritual level to prepare their
graduates to create a fair and equitable world.
Data Collection
The organizational saga framework requires an in-depth analysis of the stories of
individuals within a community, particularly those who have been successful at addressing the
issue. In this study, data were collected and analyzed primarily through qualitative research
methods. This type of methodology is critical because it helps explain the reasons behind
phenomena rather than simply noting the existence of the phenomena. Creswell (2009) described
qualitative research as “a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or
groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (p. 4). The stories, practices, and procedures of
individuals are important aspects of understanding how the institution created programs for
LGBT students. Since this study sought to understand how challenges were experienced and to
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 41
explore how individuals within the institution formulated strategies, a qualitative methodology
was appropriate. Therefore, data were collected through interviews and document analysis.
There were three phases in this study. The first phase focused on the identification and
selection of the participants within the institution. A review of documents and interviews
occurred during the second phase, and the coding and analysis of the data happened in the final
phase. Documents were readily available and offered insight into the history and direction of the
organization. Patton (2002) stated that documents offer information both directly and indirectly
and can offer insight into a program’s development. Interviews offer perspective from the view
of the subject, granting insight into his/her experiences (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). In this
study, document analysis and interviews with institutional staff were used to gather information
about the institution.
Interviews
A 15-question semi-structured interview protocol was developed to guide the interviews.
The interview matrix (Appendix A) details the interview questions and their relationship to the
three research questions. The interview guide was used for all seven participants. To identify
interview participants, the researcher familiarized himself with the structure of the institution and
identified a key informant who played a pivotal role in introducing programs for LGBT students.
The key informant served as a participant and also helped identify additional administrators and
other key institutional stakeholders who participated in the creation of the LGBT student services
on campus or who benefited from their implementation. Singhal (2010) recommended interviews
with key informants as these members of the community have an understanding of the ideas and
conversations that helped achieve the desired goal. The sample, consisting of seven participants,
are listed in Table 1.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 42
Table 1
Participants
Name Description
Dr. Andrew McDonald Senior administrator in campus ministry. He has degrees in
theology and educational administration. Dr. McDonald has
been at the institution for close to a decade. He has worked at
and attended a number of f aith‐ based institutions.
Dr. Gillian Baker Senior administrator at the university. Her area includes
oversight for the multicultural center and student
life/organizations. Dr. Baker holds a doctorate in student
development.
Dr. Kenya Greene Director of the office of Black student services. She earned a
doctorate in educational leadership studies and serves as a
member of the Rays of Light Program.
JR Nelson Doctoral student at the university and a member of the
Rays of Light Program. He is a graduate assistant in the
office for diversity and inclusion.
Carlos Amarillo Assistant director of the multicultural resource center. In his
role, he leads the Rays of Lights Program. He is a graduate of
SAU.
Dr. Eve Winters Director of the multicultural resource center. Dr. Winters has
worked at the institution for over five years. She supervises
Carlos Amarillo.
Dr. Selena Warwick Manager of Title IX and EEO programs for the university.
While she currently works in human resources, Dr.
Warwick has extensive experience in programming and
student development from previous roles at the institution.
Interviews were conducted face to face and lasted approximately 60 minutes each. Prior
to the interview, potential participants were presented with an information sheet explaining their
rights, outlining the intended use of their information and the data collected, and providing
contact information for involved parties. At the beginning of the face-to-face meeting, the
researcher reviewed the information sheet with the participants and obtained consent to move
forward with the interview.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 43
Interviews were audio recorded, with the interviewee’s consent, and the researcher took
field notes during the conversation. Following the interviews, the audio files were transcribed
using a third-party transcription company. The transcriptionist signed a confidentiality form.
After transcriptions were received, the researcher verified audiotape-to-transcription accuracy.
Document Review
Additionally, several documents were collected. Documents were campus-wide
announcements of changes in policies or procedures, newspaper and magazine articles, and
websites. The institutional statements on diversity and non-discrimination policies were also
analyzed. The goal was to identify the rationale, strategies, and behaviors that lead to the creation
of supportive programs and services.
Data Analysis
The six-step process of analysis outlined by Creswell (2009) was used for interpreting the
data. The first step involved transcribing data and field notes and placing data into categories and
types. In the second step, data were reviewed to gain a general grasp of the information. Next,
the coding process involved placing chunks of data into categories and themes using the
language of the interviewees. Following coding, data were prepared to build the themes of the
qualitative narrative of the findings. Next, representations of the findings were created either
through chronological events or other illustrations and recurring or overarching themes were
identified. The final step involved detailing what was learned from the data to determine what
additional questions might be answered by further research or how the data might be used as an
impetus for change in affected communities. Throughout this process, continuous reflection in
the form of researcher memos (Creswell, 2009) and a constant comparative analysis (Anfara,
Brown, & Mangione, 2002) took place. Validity and reliability were maintained throughout the
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 44
study by checking transcripts for mistakes and constant coding comparisons to correct for code
shifting (Creswell, 2009). Additionally, data triangulation took place through analysis of data
gathered from multiple sources to search for corroboration and to document outliers (Anfara et
al., 2002).
Ethical Considerations
This study was reviewed by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board to ensure the protection of human subjects. Key ethical considerations included additional
marginalization of members of the LGBT community who served as key informants and
maintained the confidentiality of all participants. Consideration was also given to reciprocity
between the researcher and interviewee so both parties benefited from the findings. Minimally,
the researcher wanted to share the findings represented in Chapter Four with the division of
student affairs at SAU in an effort to reciprocate the time and effort participants invested in the
research process. Sharing the findings might also potentially aid the division’s growth and
development regarding support for LGBT students. Confidentiality is a key concern in research,
but especially when dealing with issues of sexual orientation identity. To that end, the researcher
protected identities of interviewees and the institution under study by assigning pseudonyms.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 45
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
In the field of higher education, many students struggle to find institutions that support
them in their spiritual and sexual identity development (Killelea McEntarfer, 2011; Yoakam,
2006). SAU has created programs and services that work to support students in the development
of both a sexual and a spiritual identity. The goal of this study was to determine who or what
facilitated the change, the challenges faced by stakeholders to implement programming and
services for LGBT students, the behaviors and strategies used to develop and sustain said
programming and services, and how the institution fulfilled its new mission and identity. This
chapter presents the findings discovered through interviews and document review. The study
questions were answered, and a discussion of the results connects to the literature from Chapter
Two and the conceptual framework of organizational saga (Clark, 1972).
Findings
During the interviews and through a review of documents at SAU, a number of themes
emerged from the research. These themes were sorted and examined via the three research
questions to discover how SAU came to increase support and services for LGBT students.
What were the strategies used to create and realize a more inclusive space for LGBT
students?
The path to creating a more inclusive space for LGBT students at SAU started in the
1990s and has steadily progressed over the last two decades. A review of documents detailed the
history of the campus LGBT student group, PRISM, and the other landmarks of the LGBT
movement and accomplishments at SAU. The document covers a period of approximately 25
years. According to the document, PRISM started in the early nineties and was the second
student organization for LGBT students, as it was preceded by a graduate organization by one
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 46
year. The next major event was implementation of coursework related and devoted to the LGBT
identities approximately 6 years after the foundation of PRISM. Three years later, the board of
trustees adjusted the non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation.
The next phase of development included more programmatic options for the university.
Rays of Light became a university funded and institutionalized educational program. The same
year, 2009, PRISM was allowed to host their first dance on campus and an allies program was
also created. Almost a decade after the addition of sexual orientation, the university added
gender identity and expression to policies related to harassment and non-discrimination in 2011.
Following the update to the non-discrimination policy, the Drag Ball was launched.
The PRISM alumni association was created 21 years after official recognition of the
undergraduate organization. In 2013 and 2015, the institution established four courses in the
departments of economics, sociology, religious and theological studies, and psychological
sciences that were focused on LGBT topics. Appendix D provides a timeline of the
programmatic and policy changes at SAU.
Several strategies facilitated the changes at SAU, including 1) Encouraging partnerships
and collaborations; 2) Working with campus ministry; 3) Assessing campus climate; 4)
Recruiting advocates and allies; 5) Strengthening LGBT student organizations; 6) Providing
training on LGBT issues; and 7) Developing new policies; and 8) Creating inclusive events.
Providing training regarding LGBT issues. Offering multiple educational
opportunities on topics related to LGBT identity is one of the unique services offered by SAU.
Rays of Light. Founded with monies from a grant, the Rays of Light were meant to
increase visibility of the LGBT community on campus through workshops. This educational
group consists of over 25 members who serve as facilitators. As one of the most recognized
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 47
groups on campus since the turn of the century, they are integral to campus life and to creating
an environment where LGBT students are accepted and understood. The goal of the
organization, according to Carlos Amarillo, the program’s coordinator, is “to promote the
visibility of the LGBT community, but also to create enough resources and information for the
campus community to include the community in all of our decision making.” Presentations
address basic LGBT awareness, understanding privilege, bystander intervention training,
microaggressions, and intersectionality. If needed, the group can also create a uniquely tailored
workshop. For any program, two facilitators, one student, and one staff or faculty member lead
the presentation. Eve Winters, director of the multicultural center, stated that this is intentionally
done to balance out experience. Carlos shared that the focus was not only on Catholicism. He
said, “it talks about respecting the human dignity of all. Not just Catholics. Of all.” He added,
“everything that we do is aligned with the university, and we do it, and we have this program
because we’re a Catholic institution, not in spite of being Catholic institution.”
Eve reported that workshops are presented for student trainings, departmental meetings,
and in classes at the request of the faculty. According to Carlos, the program has doubled from
10 to 12 facilitators doing 20 programs a year to 25 facilitators doing 45 presentations a year. He
added, “when you look at a room of who the Rays of Lights are, we don’t have that much
diversity anywhere, or at least visible diversity. And I’m not just talking Latino, Black. I’m
talking all groups.” Over the years, the program has evolved to include other issues related to
diversity while maintaining the commitment to the LGBT community. This was done to illustrate
the social construction of oppression and to demonstrate intersectionality across marginalized
groups. Eve estimates that the program reaches between 1,700 and 1,900 students a year. In his
climate survey, JR Nelson, a doctoral student, reported,
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 48
A number of students, both undergraduate and graduate students, said that the existence
of that program and interactions that they had with people around that program was one
dimension of something that attracted them to the university, and it also helped them to
stay when they were experiencing difficult when they were having a difficult time
connected to their LGBT identity.
The program embraces the spirit of collaboration as the members include faculty, staff, and
students. An advisory team has included representatives from the women’s center along with
other administrators and staff from student affairs and faculty members. Carlos added faculty
members play an integral role as some serve on the advisory team and as facilitators and others
request workshops every semester for their classes.
Encourage partnerships and collaborations. Throughout the interviews, the ability to
partner and work with others outside of one’s own department came up often. Kenya Greene, the
director of the office of Black student services, noted that a critical success factor in making
programmatic changes at SAU was the consistent collaboration with those in the LGBT
community. Such collaboration enabled her to ensure that she was aware of students’ challenges
and needs. Eve Winters found it particularly helpful to work with partners in academic affairs
when and if an initiative could not get approval through student affairs. She added that one has to
“push” to make things change. Carlos commented that these “partnerships” and the relationships
with the other departments such as the admissions office, orientation office, women’s center, and
campus ministry enabled him to do much of the work that he did.
Faculty/academic affairs collaboration. Faculty are heavily involved in LGBT activities
across campus. First, there are a number of committees that, while not official sanctioned by the
university, have been formed by faculty to solve problems and issues as they arise. According to
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 49
Gillian, this faculty group has chosen not to be officially recognized or sanctioned as they
believe they can tackle initiatives and issues like campus climate more effectively. Another
senior faculty member serves as an advocate for the university to continue to provide resources
that serve the LGBT community. This faculty member dually serves as the advisor for PRISM.
Eve added that the PRISM advisor also has been instrumental in leading many of the changes on
campus. Centers, led by SAU faculty and focused on institutional diversity, have also taken the
lead on assessing issues on campus via their climate survey. The faculty also teach a cluster of
interdisciplinary courses that deal with LGBT issues. These classes line up with Messinger
(2011) and D’Augelli (1989) who push for increase awareness through curriculum.
Departmental collaboration. Partnerships with other departments across campus are also
key to success. Gillian noted that, as the university was making changes, many stakeholders were
included in the conversations, including faculty, student organization advisors, cultural and
gender offices, and the general counsel. Carlos detailed extensive collaboration with university
ministry, the women’s center, and various senior leaders as well as strong guidance from the
director of the multicultural center. One specific interaction noted by Carlos was working with
Andrew to lead discussions on Catholic social thought when training the facilitators for the Rays
of Light. Rays of Light involved stakeholders from across the campus. The director of the
women’s center served in an advisory capacity to the Rays of Light. This director was also
involved in the creation and expansion of the Safe Space Ally Program.
Additionally, partnerships like these foster ongoing relationships that help to create a
foundation for LGBT acceptance. Carlos noted that, based on these relationships, he selected
faculty members who requested workshops for each of their classes or became standing members
of the team of facilitators. He also stated that his office continued to work with admissions and
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 50
orientation to create standing events to illustrate acceptance of LGBT students. Eve added that
she also worked with admissions to improve SAU’s visibility as a place where queer students are
welcomed. Visibility includes attending LGBT-themed admissions fairs and events.
Carlos summarized it best when he said, “The partnerships. It’s something that I wouldn’t
be able to do if it weren’t for the relationships that I have in other departments, in other people.”
These partnerships also exist between administration and students. Students meet annually with
the assistant vice presidents (AVPs) of student life (Gillian Baker) and university ministry
(Andrew McDonald) to discuss their plans and activities for the year. Gillian remarked, “Andrew
and I try to do it in a manner that is most supportive and understanding and respectful as we
can.” The AVPs then meet with other VPs and make plans to adjust and support students’
endeavors. With regards to major events like the drag show, the AVPs are involved in planning,
dress rehearsals, and music selection to ensure that everything is respectful and within the
bounds of appropriateness.
Working with campus ministry. When building a program for LGBT students at a
religious college, campus ministry is a key department to include in planning and development.
Many of the interviewees spoke of a strong collaboration with their campus ministry department.
Gillian felt that, when addressing issues of sensitivity with the Catholic Church, campus ministry
was needed for “buy-in and support, acceptance, and help with promotion of the program.” She
added that their support in the design and implementation from the start of a program leads to it
being successful. Gillian also recommended coordinating with other departments, including
university relations, in addition to student affairs and campus ministry. Through these meetings,
expectations can be set and campus leaders can share their critique and feedback on past
endeavors.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 51
As the senior administrator in campus ministry, Andrew explained that framing
arguments in the context of the Catholic faith was important. Equally as important was the use of
data to support arguments. The LGBT students at the institution have needs, and those needs
must be met. He added,
For the institution as a whole, it helped our division and our office be recognized as one
that progresses and definitely cares a lot about the students there in front of us, more so
than, sort of, adhering to established ideological positions.
Andrew shared that he was often tapped to educate other constituencies about Catholic
understanding of sexual orientations, ways to support LGBT students and to educate about
Catholic teaching on sexuality in a broad sense. He was often tasked with ensuring that training,
messages and programming were in-line with Catholic thought and teaching and not pushing
things beyond what might be acceptable to the university and the church. This is important
because it is often difficult for people of faith to be affirming and hold on to their beliefs if they
conflict (Poynter & Tubbs, 2007).
Assessing campus climate. Rankin (2006) contends that educational experiences are
shaped by the perceptions that students hold on the climate of their campus. SAU has initiated
two surveys to specifically examine campus climate and its influence on LGBT students.
Campus climate. Selena Warwick, director of Title IX and EEO programs, supported
conducting climate surveys to “understand the unique challenges that SAU has.” In 2014, the
university concluded a study on the LGBT student experience. JR Nelson served as one of the
principal investigators. He stated the goal of the survey was to discover “what it means to be a
member of the LGBT community at a Catholic university and the tension that that can create
between the Catholic identity of the university and the identity of some of our students.” The
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 52
sample size consisted of 16 undergraduate and graduate student participants, 13 of whom
identified as LGBT and three who identified as allies. Some of the findings and
recommendations included additional training for the staff at the women’s and counseling
centers. This was meant to help build trust among providers and students who do not always feel
comfortable sharing their identity in those spaces. JR stated that the report was received and
reviewed by senior administrators, including the vice president for student affairs, the provosts,
and the president. He added that the survey and the report resulted in more open conversations
among staff, administrators, and students, but to date, a center has not been created. An earlier
climate survey focused on Black-and African American-identified students and eventually led to
the creation of a resource center for Black students.
Campus pride index. The university also participates in the campus pride index each
year. This index rates schools and colleges on their support of LGBT students with respect to
programs, services, and policies. Gillian and Eve both voiced support for continued participation
in the survey. Eve added that the multicultural center also hold dialogues focused on the
outcomes of the survey. This survey is different from the internal survey conducted by JR
Nelson. With continued growth of services, the university may eventually get to a five-star
rating. A change in ratings signifies an increase in programs, services, and visibility for the
LGBT community.
Recruiting advocates and allies. The goals of allies programs on campus typically
include affecting campus climate, awareness of LGBT students and issues, and creating a safe
space for educating and skills building (Poynter & Tubbs, 2007). A formal safe space/ally
program did not exist at SAU until 2009, but those who wanted to show their support would
place a pink triangle on their door to signify it as a safe space. Andrew noted, “the desire was to
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 53
really make it more meaningful, to provide a significant and meaningful training as to what it
would mean to be an ally and to raise the profile of the program as well.” The director of the
women’s center launched a formal program and, with the support of campus ministry to maintain
the Catholic contexts, the program and materials were created. Many people across the campus
have been trained in creating safe spaces and serving as allies on the campus. Later, the program
transitioned to be a part of the Rays of Light, but a strong collaboration still exists among
multicultural center, the women’s center, and campus ministry to maintain and improve the
program.
There was initial resistance to training, according to Carlos. Some faculty and staff felt
they were already competent in this area. However, student reaction and feedback to the official
placards were positive. Gillian reported that the new president of the university completed safe
space allies training. She also reported that a number of department chairs went through the
training as well. Allies on campus are part of a network and receive updates via an e-mail
listserv. Many of the respondents reported that the placards around campus are very visible, and
they consider this to be on their most significant programs and symbols of their support for their
LGBT students. This aligns with Worthen’s assertion that knowing someone who identifies as
LGBT and having a safe space program promotes supportive attitudes toward LGBT people
(2012). Selena considered it to be one of the stronger signature programs, noting that people
show their support via the placard, via web search for allies, and even include it in email
signatures. She also added,
When I first left public institutions to go to a Catholic institution, I really did have some
reservations on whether or not I was going to be comfortable with my social justice
stances, being at a Catholic institution. And, then, what I really kind of pushed myself to
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 54
realize was that this is exactly where I need to be, so that there can be a voice and you
can be not just an ally, but an advocate to be able to make it a more comfortable space for
all students to be able to get an education where they choose to be.
Such support and commitment by allies and advocates was integral to programmatic changes
according to a number of interviewees.
Strengthening student organizations. SAU students were key to the process of change.
Eve called for preparing and training students to advocate for their needs and to teach them that
they have “tremendous agency and voice.” This requires student organizations that have strong
support from advisors, be they faculty or staff.
PRISM student organization. PRISM is the official LGBT student organization on
campus. It was created a decade before Rays of Light. Andrew McDonald noted, “it’s significant
for a Catholic university to officially recognize a PRISM organization.” While that recognition
has been tenuous, it does exist, and the group has a number of significant programs and
activities, including a dance, the drag show, and the welcoming event at orientation. Eve
remarked, “I think the students have been really savvy at just kind of pushing the envelope.”
Carlos added that when gender expression was included in the human resources policy, PRISM
used the opportunity to bring the drag show to campus. Gillian noted that, in recent years with
growth and adjustments in campus climate, the group’s membership has declined, as some
students find accepting communities across campus. This includes the student government where
more than a few of the past presidents have been openly gay, according to Andrew.
PRISM is also active in hate crimes awareness week where they host a candlelight vigil for those
affected by violence. PRISM also works closely with LGBT groups in the university’s
professional and graduate schools and created sub-groups that deal with the intersecting
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 55
identities within the community, including those related to race and ethnicity and gender identity
and expression.
Developing new policies. SAU developed two new policies that affirmed the rights of
individuals, regardless of identity: 1) Gender-inclusive restrooms; and 2) Non-discrimination
policy.
Gender-inclusive restrooms. The university currently has seven gender-inclusive
bathrooms on campus. While they are single-use, they may eventually host one that is multi-
stalled. Carlos reported,
I know the assistant vice president was part of those conversations. She [is] one of those
people who are championing this kind of work, so she was actually bringing that
information to that committee to try to get these bathroom.
Among the significant issues was what the bathrooms would be called and what the signage
would be. There were debates about whether they should be gender-neutral, gender inclusive or
all genders. Additionally the selection of the signs were heavily debated as there doesn’t exist a
universally accepted illustration. Carlos encapsulated some thoughts from faculty and staff who
had been on-campus for many years as, “Okay, yes, we’re moving right direction, but it’s not
coming soon enough, and we’re tired of waiting.”
Non-discrimination policy. SAU developed a non-discrimination policy in 2011 that
further affirms its commitment to preventing discrimination and creating safe spaces. A review
of the SAU campus policy details its commitment to equal opportunity without consideration of
one’s sex, race, age, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or religion. For
example:
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 56
All student-related programs and services … will be administered without regard to the
student’s or applicant’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, gender expression, marital status, pregnancy, age, physical disability,
mental disability, or other characteristic protected by federal or state law.
The university similarly does not abandon its lawful rights as a Catholic institution as
they pertain to the teachings of the Church or the Catholic identity. This is different than other
religiously-affiliated institutions that demonstrate preference for those of their faith and include
oaths that must be signed by potential employees affirming their faith.
Creating inclusive events that celebrate queer culture. One of the more significant
things done at SAU was creating programs that were uniquely LGBT-focused and affirming.
These events are big and bold and separate the institution from their religiously-affiliated peers.
Gender identity/gender expression event. Colloquially known as the drag show, this is
a signature event on-campus. Approved by the previous president at the university, the program
is currently allowed to cautiously move forward. The program received more oversight than a
typical program at SAU; this includes oversight from the AVPs of campus ministry and student
life. Gillian expanded on her and Andrew’s roles,
We are the ones who have been tasked with overseeing the drag show, so we meet with
the students who are planning it every year. We meet with the acts, the planners, the MC,
review any speeches to make sure that they are in alignment with mission, so that the
university feels comfortable continuing the program.
Selena was on campus for the first show. She noted that the campus was prepared for student
demonstrations and protests, and while some protests did occur, she stated that they were small
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 57
and respectful. Gillian noted that they still have alumni who protest, sign petitions, and try to
shut it down. Carlos retorted,
In my opinion, an even bigger alumni group was in favor of it. And that was something
that was great to see as an alum myself because, sometimes, we hear from alumni a lot
about what we’re doing wrong. And it was the first time that I could really see a strong
group of alumni pushing and thanking the president for allowing this to happen.
The event is popular on campus; Kenya noted that tickets always sell out. Andrew summed it up:
“Some of those people are never going to be happy, but the majority of the on-campus
population would recognize the university trying to live its values more consistently and more
courageously and would see that very positively.”
Faith-based small group meeting. One of the signature programs at SAU is the small
group, a faith based group where LGBT students meet with a mentor to explore and discuss their
faith. According to Andrew, the group allows the university to show its support as an ally while
not diminishing other programs and services offered. Andrew stated there was also a need for
this group because the LGBT students were not being served in terms of their faith. He
remarked, “they did come from Christian or faith-based backgrounds, and that was important to
them even if they felt conflicted about it. And so it was a space that didn’t exist on our campus at
the time, and that’s why we created it.” This did create conflict, though. Traditionally, groups
were meant to be open to everyone, but this one was specifically targeted towards one group.
Andrew says this was justified because “LGBT students needed a space where they could be.”
The importance of this space was that it created an environment where people could speak
freely:
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 58
People could be honest and open about their identities and also be really honest about the
fact that they didn’t have it all worked out yet. They were still trying to make sense out of
what often felt to them like these identities that were in conflict.
The group signified progress, as it was another university recognized space for students who
identified as members of the LGBT community. The university ministry sponsorship allowed
access to resources, including staff to lead the meetings. Andrew explained that one of the other
keys to success was getting the approval of his vice president. While the process was not one of
unbridled support, Andrew explained that there were a number of questions and concerns that
were eventually allayed, but the key takeaway was that the program was allowed to be created
and support was given to the students. The creation of the program relied heavily on student
feedback and involvement. Special attention was also paid to ensure the group's mission was
similar to those of the other groups offered. They worked to be intentional about the group’s
marketing and the key goal of maintaining the students’ spiritual exploration and their
relationship with God. Rockenbach, Lo, & Mayhew (2016) note that interfaith spaces, when
created properly, can be the best place for students to “question, embrace and internalize their
multiple identities” (p. 19).
Orientation program. Zemsky & Sanlo state the role of student affairs is to let students
know that they are expected and welcome (2005). In an effort to promote support and awareness
for LGBT students, an ice cream social was added to the new student orientation programs. The
program is included in the written orientation schedule and communicated via websites. JR
Nelson added that it is customary for the president and other senior administrators to attend the
event. Additionally, during a Belonging at SAU Program, Eve detailed that they speak very
specifically about language, behaviors, and being inclusive of all communities. This first-year
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 59
student program is focused on inclusive language and is part of a larger campaign that follows up
the program with posters and other materials that reinforce the use of words and phrases that
bring groups together.
What were the catalysts that led to programmatic changes at SAU?
Leadership Shifts and Changes. When a couple new administrators were brought on
board at SAU in 2008, they were not adequately briefed regarding all policies and procedures
related to student events. Gillian explained, “our director of the multicultural center had
approved the PRISM Dance and, unbeknownst to her or myself because we were both new, we
didn’t know that that was not allowed on campus.” Only when Gillian was told that it was
unacceptable for PRISM, the LGBT student group, to have a dance on campus did she and the
multicultural center’s director become aware that it was an issue. Gillian shared,
I was asked to tell them they couldn’t do it, and then we had multiple, multiple
discussions about whether or not PRISM could hold the dance on campus. And, finally,
the decision was made that they were going to be allowed to have a dance. Previously,
they could have a dance, but it just couldn’t be on the campus grounds.
This was an example of a challenges faced by LGBT student organizations related to not offering
full recognition (Killelea McEntarfer, 2011). With this opening into hosting a dance on campus,
PRISM found two administrators who were supportive and sympathetic to their organization and
who became allies to their initiatives. As noted, allies are important to making progress in an
organization.
Andrew also believes that the election of Pope Francis in 2013 and the installation of a
new bishop in 2015 shifted priorities for the organization. Both the pope and the bishop focus on
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 60
“caring for the [LGBT] population,” which allowed SAU to also shift its approach. JR Nelson,
explained:
The new pope has been really helpful in his taking a much more progressive message and
a much more progressive approach to Catholicism, making a number of very public and
very clear statements about the need for Catholics to treat LGBT people as brothers and
sisters, with the same respect and dignity that all human beings deserve. The pope issuing
an apology to LGBT people, to the LGBT community, for the oppression that
Catholicism has in the past and, to a degree, still continues to press onto members of that
community. I think a lot of those things have been really helpful, and that the national
culture, and also the culture of Catholicism, is starting to shift a little bit.
JR also noted that the most recent university president attended a safe space training within the
first three months on campus. The president also committed to attending at least one PRISM
meeting a year.
Andrew stated there have been a few examples of student government presidents who
have also been members of PRISM and were able to “leverage their position as president to
continue to bring visibility and support to PRISM.” Finally, JR and Gillian also indicated that at
least two to four of the student government presidents in the last decade or so have identified as
members of the LGBT community.
With the conservative nature of many religious schools, sometimes leadership happens
behind the scenes or in very non-public ways. Andrew noted that many changes came under the
previous president who served for over a decade between 2003 -2015, while not “overtly
supportive, I think, on a personal level, she [was]. But she was pretty cautious about not
alienating the public that she was responsible to: the board and others, alumni.” He mentioned
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 61
the vice president for student affairs and also highlighted their leadership, support, and defense
of programs for LGBT students. This was not be someone students would consider a vocal
advocate, but Andrew observed that the vice president could be propelled by evidence and staff
to make positive change. Gillian supported this notion: “It was the vice presidential and
presidential support to allow us to have those activities, and that was not without significant risk
and challenge from alumni.” Kenya echoed that senior administrators need to be included and
supportive of initiatives if institutions are going to successfully change like SAU has. This
concurs with Sanlo (2002) who argued that administrators needs to show that they care about
LGBT students through words and actions. Eve also called for consistent communication with
administrators so they are aware of what is happening and are prepared for responses.
Changes in laws and regulations. There were also changes in laws that created an
opportunity for change. Andrew remarked, “in 2008, of course, we had the passage of
Proposition 8 and that really did galvanize the campus community to think about the rights
afforded to GLTBQ or GLTB people.” Because of the passage of Proposition 8, LGBTQ
students and allies were able to push for additional programs, including a drag show. Gillian
stated, “the first year they did that drag show was the year that gender identity and gender
expression were added to California’s EEO policy.” The impact of the new law, coupled with the
ability to host the PRISM Dance on campus, according to Gillian “opened the door for us to
explore gender expression in new ways.” Andrew added, “the passage of Proposition 8…really
did galvanize the campus community to think about the rights afforded to GLTBQ or GLTB
people.” Eve noted the post-Prop 8 attitudes towards gay marriage, military service, and bullying
“flip-flopped” and the millennial generation is showing themselves to be much more supportive,
understanding, and accepting.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 62
Crisis. Halady (2013) notes that loss of life to suicide is a common outcome for LGBT
students. At one point, SAU experienced the death of four students by suicide. One of the
administrators interviewed confirmed that at least three of the students were known to identify as
gay, and two of those students were experiencing difficulties related to their identity. Andrew
shared, “it was a quite painful year … It’s awareness that, even though we had some programs in
place on campus, that we needed to do more to make sure students feel that they’re welcome.”
Eve added, the “impact of the stress on the individual is tremendous.” She further discussed
pervasiveness of macroaggressions, especially related to race and sexual orientation.
Controversy. Carlos and JR both shared a particularly controversial event. In 2012, a
speaker had been invited to campus who signed a bill challenging the Church’s role in objecting
to same sex-marriage as civil ceremonies. The invitation sparked a great deal of controversy, and
the event was eventually cancelled. JR commented that the rescinding of the speaking
engagement “called attention to the politically sticky nature of working with LGBT students and
having an open dialogue around LGBT student experiences on-campus.” Carlos added, “there
was a lot of pushback from faculty because of academic freedom, and so that stirred a dialogue
across campus.” This controversy confirmed the importance of having faculty support for
initiatives.
What Were the Challenges Faced by Stakeholders at SAU to Implement Programming and
Services for LGBT Students?
Religious and sexual congruence. Consistent with the literature, one of the core
challenges faced included reconciling issues of sexual orientation with Catholic faith and
teachings. JR explained that, as a new student on campus, he inquired about the status of LGBT
relations, and it was described as “begrudging acceptance.” Eve added, “I think that there is
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 63
some fear as to, as a Catholic campus, this idea that we seem too supportive of that.” Both of
those comments are in line with Yoakam’s assertion that catholic colleges and universities often
have to contend with the conflict of their mission that calls for all humans to be treated with
dignity (2006). Andrew stated much of the confusion related to the Church’s stance on sexuality
is that many use it to further a negative and hurtful agenda. He added,
When we talk about the Catholic position on sexuality, [it] is always idealistic and
aspirational, so the catechism holds up the highest ideals, and then walks with people and
tries to help them wherever they might find themselves falling short of that.
While some purport that homosexuality is the greatest sin, Andrew countered that being gay is
just as sinful as premarital sex and other activities that college students routinely participate in.
His closing thought was:
Ultimately, the Christian tradition is about respecting the dignity of every human being,
and that’s primary by far. It’s only much later that specific ethical questions around how
we live our sexual lives come in, but after the primary foundation of respecting the
dignity and the sacredness of every human being. That’s what’s most important.
This point articulates Barton’s contention that in order for sexuality to be integrated with
spirituality, one must counteract the messages of misinformation based on religious dogma and
interpretations of specific texts that denounce homosexuality (2010).
Community response. One of the other challenges that occurred were a vocal group of
students, alumni, and community members who spoke out strongly against the university’s
support of the drag show. Among the objections was a belief that gender identity and expression
were set concepts that could not be altered and that the goal of the drag show was to promote
homosexuality. The response from administrators, including Andrew, was “let’s not pretend like
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 64
sexual orientation is not a part of any of our lives, but this program is about gender expression
and gender identity.” Another interviewee, Kenya, also echoed the sentiment that LGBTQ
students often struggle with their Christian background and upbringing and try to reconcile
“wanting to love everybody, but I’ve grown up for the past 18, 19 years telling me that this is
how people should be.” The students, in her opinion, have to balance their historical beliefs and
their current ideologies.
Formal protest related to the drag show also included alumni and members of the
community. One community member created a website to protest the show and forced his son,
who was a student at the time, leave the institution. Gillian summarized it as, “of course, some of
those people are never going to be happy, but the majority of the on-campus population would
recognize the university trying to live its values more consistently and more courageously and
would see that very positively.” Selena commented that “there was certainly strife within some
of our alumni, some of our large donors.” Andrew added that, while there was a decrease in
giving during the inaugural year of the drag show, funding overall continued to be positive.
Gillian noted that some alumni still submit petitions every year to try to stop the event from
happening. Regardless of normalization of funding and the fact that the show has been on-going
for many years, there are alumni who still protest via petition annually to have the event
discontinued.
Student transition. One of the challenges noted by Andrew was lack of continuity. Once
strong student leaders graduated, some programs lasted only for a year or two. JR Nelson added
that students often try and increase advocacy and programming around issues for transgender
students but “it sort of jump-starts every couple of years when a particular student, or a small
group of students, decide that they want to put some energy behind it, but it hasn’t been a thing
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 65
that has really been sustained. And so I would hope to see more sustainability around those
programs.”
Resources. Eve remarked, “I think the challenge with this work is that people expect you
to do, do, do, do, and they do not want to give you the resources to do it. And by resources, I’m
not just talking about funding to do the programs. I’m talking about human resources.” Space is
another resource that was particularly challenging to locate. Eve noted recent trends on campus
to create identity-based spaces and shared that SAU recently opened a center for Black/African
American students. The new center increased conversation on-campus about other identity-based
groups wanting a dedicated space. JR Nelson encapsulated it as, “well, if this group gets their
own space, and this group gets their own staff, how come we can’t? What do we have to do in
order to get these resources for ourselves?” Kenya, the director of the Black resource center
remarked that, as SAU lacks an LGBT center or even a dedicated staff member, collaboration
mainly happens with PRISM, the undergraduate LGBT student group, the Rays of Light, [a
program that educated the university community about LGBT issues], or through outreach that
has to be self-initiated.
Summary
Through the review of documents and interviews with staff members, it was found that a
combination of new laws and new leadership lead to many new supports and services for LGBT
students at SAU. These changes were challenged by current students, some alumni, and
community members, but, ultimately, they remained in effect. Using strategies including close
collaboration with faculty, staff, and campus departments, the college was able to create new
programs and policies that were intended to fully recognize LGBT students at SAU.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 66
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to understand the path to religious colleges and universities
supporting LGBT students in their spiritual and sexual identity development. Literature and
practice have shown that many institutions are prepared to support students to expand the
understanding of their spiritual selves while many others excel at exploring sexual identity.
There are very few institutions that strengthen both identities (Love, 1998, Yoakam, 2006).
In situations where an individual has to choose an identity, the literature shows that they
will choose one identity over another to detrimental effects (Hindman, 2002; Barton, 2010; Gold
& Stewart, 2011). These include suppression of their spiritual or sexual identity, alienation or
separations from communities of support (including families, organizations, towns) to acts of
self-harm including risky life choices related to sex, drugs, harmful therapy, and, in some cases,
suicide. The other outcome is that the individual does not have the opportunity to live as a fully-
formed individual able to express both their faith and their ability to love the person(s) they
choose or to express their gender in the way that best matches their internal identity.
Through a series of interviews and review of documents, this study sought to learn about
one faith-based institution, SAU, that is attempting to support students in the development of
both their sexual and religious identities. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What were the strategies used to create and realize a more inclusive space for
LGBT students?
2. What were the catalysts that led to programmatic changes at SAU?
3. What were the challenges faced by stakeholders at SAU to implement
programming and services for LGBT students?
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 67
Summary and Discussion
This study was informed by an organizational saga framework and Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model of identity development. Organizational saga (Clark, 1972) focuses on
significant changes and transformations that push an institution into a new phase of existence
that distinguishes it exclusively from other like entities. Bronfenbrenner explores the role of the
community in the development of an individual’s identity (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Organizational Saga
The transformational process of organizational saga occurs in two phases. Phase one
includes the initiation process. This happens when an individual or a group discovers an
opportunity to bring about a significant change or growth within the organization.
Initiation. At SAU, the students in PRISM brought about the growth they wanted for
their university. As noted previously, there were multiple catalysts for change at SAU, including
new laws and new leadership on the campus. The passage of Proposition 8 in California was a
significant set-back for LGBT rights in the United States. This was an example where a
population had been given rights and then had them taken away (Ballotpedia, n.d.). As Andrew
noted, this law “galvanized” the community into action. Two years later, the university included
gender expression and identity in its non-discrimination clause, which, as Gillian stated, allowed
them to “explore gender expression in new ways.” The choice to add gender identity and
expression was a significant act for the institution. It showed that there was an openness to be
accepting and welcoming of the LGBT community. Moreover, multiple participants noted that
leadership at SAU played significant roles in becoming more accepting of LGBT students. The
president at the time of both the passage of Proposition 8 and the EEO update quietly supported
the changes or, at a minimum, showed little resistance to the changes. The university’s new
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 68
president, while coming in after much of the change, has shown a commitment to continuing the
growth, as they have completed a safe space training and agreed to meet with PRISM and attend
meetings. The other significant new leadership event occurred when Gillian and Eve granted
PRISM’s request to have a dance on campus. Gillian remarked the decision was simple. Eve
added that students were savvy at “pushing the envelope.”
PRISM’s dance, which had occurred in the past but was not allowed to occur on
university property, was a catalyst for continued change. By having the dance at SAU, PRISM
became like the other non-LGBT student organizations at SAU. It was an acknowledgement of
their legitimacy as a group and as people. The group found allies in Gillian and Eve who saw
nothing wrong with having a dance; the students’ ability to advocate for themselves during the
negotiations, especially with allies, was key to their success.
Fulfillment. Once the initiation process begins, the next phase in an organizational saga
is to begin to fulfill the commitment to a new identity as a transformed entity. This is followed
by creating and sharing their special story and creation of a legend. This legend may include new
programs and new procedures, as well as the various communities that support and reinforce the
new organization (Clark, 1972). PRISM had existed for years as a recognized student
organization which was, in its own right, a noteworthy accomplishment. SAU had a choice with
the new laws that required acceptance of gender identity and expression in addition to sexual
orientation. SAU decided to be fully accepting and inclusive with a non-discrimination policy
that did not add qualifiers related to religious exemptions in the guidelines. The leadership also
approved PRISM’s on-campus dance. At SAU, each interviewee expressed their belief in the
benefit of SAU being more inclusive and accepting of the LGBT community; they passed down
the story of the changes and were actively involved in recruiting allies. The interviewees created
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 69
the legend through both their commitment to LGBT students and awareness of the issues. Many
of them serve or served as facilitators of Rays of Light, and each of them illustrated a
commitment through support or creation of a program or service that benefited LGBT students.
Andrew expressed this through his advising of the drag show alongside Gillian and his creation
of the small group. JR Nelson played an active role in the creation and research for the climate
survey, and both Eve and Carlos helped through their work in the multicultural center and in
oversight of Rays of Light. Kenya included intersection of sexuality and race in her programs.
Selena played an active role as an ally and advocate on campus.
The creation of visible and distinct practices for institutions are key factors to
transformation. Five programs take on significance at SAU because of their religious connection.
The first is orientation, which, at SAU, welcomes LGBT students and their families and shows a
commitment to the population’s success. Secondly, the drag show extends that commitment by
celebrating queer culture. Third, the small group faith meetings allow students to explore their
spirituality and sexuality in a supportive space. Next, the cluster of courses that focus on LGBT
issues is unique at a catholic school. Lastly, the Rays of Light program educates campus
stakeholders specifically about LGBT issues.
SAU does lack some of the visual elements of the change, including ceremonies or a
strong written history about its change. The institution should make its unique proposition to the
LGBT community known. Whether that be through the creation of new ceremonies for LGBT
students, like a graduation event, or ways to tell their stories in other LGBT-inclusive spaces so
that more may be aware of their work and pursue an education or employment at the university.
While the university is meeting a criteria of living the story, there are a few more steps that
should be taken to move to a phase of pride.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 70
When fully completed, an organizational saga results in pride in the organization. This
pride exists for faculty, staff and, especially, students. This unique new institution is a source of
pride, as all interviewees were proud of the work they do. The program they were most proud of
is the drag show. The hope would be that in the future they include new programs and structures
that support LGBT students and expand on the courses currently offered that focus on LGBT
institutions, including possibly offering a minor or a concentration.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model of Identity Development
While enrolled, many students will live on campus, and this means SAU serves as both
their home and their school. The development that occurs within the microsystem is also heavily
influenced by the faculty and staff at the college as well as the students. These specific programs
and services offer students the opportunity to develop their spirituality and sexuality where both
are seen as valid identities. Upon arrival at orientation, new LGBT students are welcomed at a
specific LGBT social. They have the option of joining a student group, PRISM that is dedicated
to affirming the sexual and gender identity. Students can explore their faith as an LGBT person
in a small faith-based group with a mentor. They can express their gender identity or explore
another identity during the drag show. Supportive peers and mentors are easily identifiable
through the allies program. They see their identity represented in courses they take across
multiple disciplines. The community that is built around them at the institution is supportive and
engaging.
Critical Success Factors
From the interviews and documents three critical success factors emerged that have
implications for other religiously-affiliated schools seeking to create similar changes.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 71
Integrate campus ministry. This department is primarily charged with assisting students
on their spiritual journey. In its primary function, it offered support for students through the
small group. Additionally, campus ministry staff bring their expertise related to understanding
and interpreting Catholic thought and teaching as the school moves forward to more inclusive
and engaging programming and services. This was evidenced by Andrew’s involvement in
everything from oversight of the drag ball to the designing of the safe space program. Having
campus ministry involved from idea to creation of any new changes allows a strong chance of
success.
Encourage cross-department collaboration. As much as working with campus ministry
is important, cross-departmental collaboration is as important. The gender and culture identity
centers as well as campus ministry and other areas of student affairs/services should work
together as they both have limited human and fiscal resources. Additionally, the intersections of
much of their work are beneficial to removing the barriers to student success or identity
integration. Each department also seeks to ensure that students are welcome whether they hold
the identities that the centers support or not.
Empower allies. Finally, engagement of allies was a key part of moving things forward.
Finding allies in the administration allowed PRISM to have their first dance, and support from
campus ministry and student life paved the way for the drag ball. The desire to support and
educate the community about LGBT issues was a key reason the grant that supported the
initiation of the Rays of Light. Lastly, the safe spaces ally program recognized that an inclusive
campus was important at SAU and also trained and empowered new allies.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 72
Implications for Practice
A key indicator for success with the allies program, the drag show, and the small group
was a strong relationship with campus ministry and the departments creating the program and
services. If one is trying to move forward with LGBT programs, it may be vital to have campus
ministry on board. The key to SAU’s success was, as Andrew believed, that Catholic social
thought was inclusive of LGBT students and their dignity as people of faith. It is important to
have someone at the institution who speaks the language of the faith community.
Resources on a campus are always limited, and one needs to make sure to maximize this
through collaboration. People from different areas working together will increase the likelihood
of success. SAU had support in campus ministry, the women’s center, the multicultural center,
the Black student resource center and the AVP for student life. These departments, along with
senior leadership from the president and vice president for student affairs, were key to moving
forward with support for student organizations and program development. None of the people
interviewed for the project identified as members of the LGBT community. This highlights the
importance of the role of allies in bringing about changes within an organization.
As this study focused on practitioners, it is important to continually dialogue with and
assess the needs and contributions of administrators in bringing forth change. When an
administrator is identified as an ally and advocate, institutions should work to ensure they are
also supported and recognized for their change efforts.
Lessons Learned
Through the research, analysis and wring process, a number of lessons were learned by
the researcher. These include lessons from the methodology and the data as well as implications
for daily practice and specific recommendations for further or future research.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 73
Increase Quantity of Interviews to Include Faculty and Student Perspective
The researcher did reach out to two faculty members mentioned by key informants. One
of those potential interviewees did not believe they had insight to add; another did not return
repeated requests to participate. Similarly, requests to staff at the counseling and psychological
services offices went unanswered. While the initial invitation to participate focused on faculty
and staff, it may have also been beneficial to speak to students involved in some of the actions or
current students who benefited from the services.
Review Additional Documents
It would be beneficial to have access to more documents related to the creation of
programs and services. Proposals, recommendations, announcements and memorandum would
have possibly contained rich data upon which to draw additional conclusions. These documents
could have included course concepts presented by the faculty to the university senate to increase
the number of courses related to LGBT content.
Conduct Similar Research AT More Than One Site
Also of benefit would be evaluating this process at more than one site. As part of this
process, I had three institutions to choose from. Unfortunately, the first two sites declined to
participate at the level needed to complete the research. Had they been willing, it would have
been interesting to look at the commonalities and differences in approaches and outcomes at the
institutions. However, it is promising that there are at least three major institutions in the country
making progress towards supporting LGBT students in their spiritual and sexual development.
Personal Take Away
This is still a controversial topic. The first major takeaway is that, even at institutions that
are supportive of LGBT students and have programs and services, it is still a somewhat
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 74
controversial topic. This was evidenced for me by the number of institutions that said no to me
before someone said yes. These rejections also came after time was spent having conversations
where it appeared that participation was likely; then upon contacting senior leaders, the
opportunity to conduct the study was no longer available.
Additional Research is Still Needed in the Area
While this investigation focused on how an institution becomes supportive of LGBT
students, other topics or questions that should be answered include how successful the programs
were and what the LGBT student experience is like. It remains unknown whether these programs
and services result in improved retention, graduation rates, academic performance, or social
satisfaction. It is also unknown if students are successfully integrating their sexual and spiritual
identity and how the transgender community is affected by the changes. These questions call for
comparisons between SAU and other institutions doing similar work. Additional research must
also be conducted to expand the literature on the topic of supporting LGBT students at a
religious institution. There also need to continued study regarding the reduction of suicide and
other harmful behaviors in the community. There is a dearth of information on transgender
populations on issues related to spiritual development and integration of spiritual and sexual
identity in concert with gender identity and expression. Additionally, as identities that fall under
both sexual orientation and gender identity continue to expand, we are going to need to
understand how these students are interacting with institutions and ensuring that they are poised
for success.
Conclusion
The goal of this study was to discover the path to LGBT support at a religious institution.
Through the investigation, I found that SAU leadership allowed the formation of student groups
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 75
that affirmed LGBT students. SAU also complied with state laws related to discrimination while
being supportive of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression and did not make use of a
religious exemption. This university allowed an LGBT organization to host both a dance and a
drag show. Staff and faculty actively engaged in creating educational opportunities through
programs like Rays of Light and the allies program. Campus ministry played a significant role in
helping to maintain Catholic identity and teaching in shaping the safe space program and
overseeing the drag show. Campus ministry also created a specific faith-based support group for
LGBT students while also working to ensure that all faith groups were supportive.
Many of the staff, faculty, and students at SAU have worked to create an inclusive
environment for their students. Administrators advocated for change despite pushback from
community members including students, alumni and donors. This commitment to the community
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender at the university is exemplary as it is one of a small
contingent of institutions that offer this support out of hundreds within the United States. Given
the history and consequences of discrimination and violence against members of the LGBT
community, this university has the potential to be both life-changing and life-saving for students.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 76
REFERENCES
Alvarez, S. D., & Schneider, J. (2008). One college campus’s need for a safe zone: A case study.
Journal of Gender Studies, 17(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230701838461
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage:
Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028
Ballotpedia. (n.d.) Proposition 8. Retrieved from
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_8,_the_%22Eliminates_Right_of_Same-
Sex_Couples_to_Marry%22_Initiative_(2008)
Barton, B. (2010). “Abomination”- Life as a bible belt gay. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4),
465–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918361003608558
Bearss, N. (2013). Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in schools. In C.
S. Clauss-Ehlers, Z. N. Serpell, & M. D. Weist (Eds.), Handbook of culturally responsive
school mental health: Advanced research, training, practice and policy (pp. 89–105).
New York, NY: Springer.
Benoit, M. (2005). Conflict between religious commitment and same-sex attraction: Possibilities
for a virtuous response. Ethics & Behavior, 15(4), 309–325.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1504_3
Bilodeau, B., & Renn, K. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and
implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 25–39.
doi:10.1002/ss.171
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 77
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed, pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity
formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143–167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498409551214
Chase, B. & Ressler, P. (2009). An LGBT/Queer Glossary. English Journal, 98(4). 23-24.
Cherry, C., De Berg, B. A., & Porterfield, A. (2001). Religion on campus. Chapel Hill,: The
University of North Carolina Press.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17(2), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393952
Collier, H., Perrin, R., & McGowan, C.B. (2006, January). The last discrimination: Gay men and
lesbians in the classroom. Paper presented at the International Conference College
Teaching and Learning, Florida.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 78
(Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
D’Augelli, A.R. (1989). Lesbian and gay men on campus: Visibility, empowerment and
educational leadership. Peabody Journal of Education. 66(3). 124-142.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Estanek, S.M., James, M.J., & Norton, D.A. (2006). Assessing catholic identity: A study of
mission statements of catholic colleges and universities. Journal of Catholic Education,
10(2). 199-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.1002062013
Finlay, B., & Walther, C. S. (2003). The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and
other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of Religious
Research,44(4), 370–393. https://doi.org/10.2307/3512216
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for
meaning. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Garrett, M. (2006.) The identity of american catholic higher education: A historical overview.
Journal of Catholic Education, 10(2). 229-247.
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (2009). The 2009 national school climate survey.
New York, NY: Author.
Gear, M. R., Krumrei, E. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2009). Development of a spiritually-sensitive
intervention for college students experiencing spiritual struggles: Winding Road. Journal
of College and Character, 10(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1048
Getz, C., & Kirkley, E. (2006). Shaking up the status quo: Challenging intolerance of the lesbian,
gay and bisexual community at a private roman Catholic university. College Student
Journal., 40(4), 857–869.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 79
Gold, S. P., & Stewart, D. L. (2011). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual students coming out at the
intersection of spirituality and sexual identity. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling,
5(3-4), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2011.633052
Gortmaker, V. J., & Brown, R. D. (2006). Out of the college closet: Differences in perceptions
and experiences among out and closeted lesbian and gay students. College Student
Journal,40(3), 606–619.
Halady, S. W. (2013). Attempted suicide, LGBT identity, and heightened scrutiny. The American
Journal of Bioethics, 13(3), 20–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2012.760676
Hindman, D. M. (2002). From splintered lives to whole persons: Facilitating spiritual
development in college students. Religious Education, 97(2), 165–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00344080290060923
Hong, J. S., & Garbarino, J. (2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in
schools: An application of the social-ecological framework. Educational Psychology
Review,24(2), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9194-y
Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Killelea McEntarfer, H. (2011). “Not going away”: Approaches used by students, faculty and
staff members to create gay-straight alliances at three religiously affiliated universities.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(4), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011.607623
Kocet, M. M., Sanabria, S., & Smith, M. R. (2011). Finding the spirit within: Religion,
spirituality, and faith development in lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals. Journal of
LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5(3-4), 163-179.
Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., & Kull, R. M. (2015). Reflecting Resiliency: Openness about
sexual orientation and/or gender identity and its relationship to well-being and
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 80
educational outcomes for LGBT students. American Journal of Community Psychology,
55(1-2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9642-6
Lance, L. M. (2002). Heterosexism and homophobia among college students. College Student
Journal, 36(3), 410–414.
Landon, K. (June 26, 2014). Impact of parental involvement on child development. Retrieved
from https://hubbli.com/impact-of-parent-involvement/
Love, P. G. (1998). Cultural barriers facing lesbian, gay, and bisexual students at a Catholic
college. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 298–323.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2649190
Love, P. G., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring
the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0019
Love, P., & Talbot, D. (1999). Defining spiritual development: A missing consideration for
student affairs. NASPA Journal, 37(1), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1097
Luke, M., & Goodrich, K. M. (2015). Working with family, friends, and allies of lgbt youth.
Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 7(1), 63–83.
Maher, M. J., Sever, L. M., & Pichler, S. (2008). How Catholic college students think about
homosexuality: The connection between authority and sexuality. Journal of
Homosexuality,55(3), 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360802345065
Maxon, D. L., & Rosenholtz, C.E. (2012). Missing voices: A study of religious voices in
mainstream media reports about LGBT equality. Los Angeles, CA: Gay & Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 81
Messinger, L. (2011). A qualitative analysis of faculty advocacy on LGBT issues on campus.
Journal of Homosexuality, 58(9), 1281–1305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.605740
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Poulson, S.L. & Higgins, L.P. (2003). Gender, coeducation, and the transformation of catholic
identity in american catholic higher education. The Catholic Historic Review, 89(3). 489-
510.
Poynter, K. J., & Tubbs, N. J. (2007). Safe zones: Creating LGBT safe space ally programs.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 1(5), 121–132.
Poynter, K. J., & Washington, J. (2005). Multiple identities: Creating communities on campus
for LGBT students. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 41–47.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.172
Rankin, S. R. (2005). Campus climate for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student
Services, 2005(111), 17–23.
Rankin, S. R. (2006). LGBTQA students on campus: Is higher education making the grade?
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(2-3), 111–117.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n02_11
Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists. Journal
of College Student Development, 48(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0029
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 82
Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the
field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10362579
Reynolds, A. L., & Hanjorgiris, W. F. (2000). Coming out: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity
development. Handbook of counseling, and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and
bisexual clients. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10339-002
Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequities in educational and psychological outcomes
between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational
Researcher, 40(7), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11422112
Rockenbach, A. N., Lo, M. A., & Mayhew, M. J. (2016). How LGBT college students perceive
and engage the campus religious and spiritual climate. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(4),
488–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1191239
Roe, S. (2013). Put it out there that you are willing to talk about anything: The role of school
counselors in providing support to gay and bisexual youth. ASCA Professional School
Counseling, 17(1), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.5330/prsc.17.1.5728601842662000
Rostosky, S. S., Black, W. W., Riggle, E. D. B., & Rosenkrantz, D. (2015). Positive aspects of
being a heterosexual ally to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(4), 331–338.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000056
Russell, S. T., Ryan, C., Toomey, R. B., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2011). Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender adolescent school victimization: Implication for young adult
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 83
health and adjustment. The Journal of School Health, 81(5), 223–230.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00583.x
Ryan, R. (2005). The evolution of an LGBT center at a public institution. New Directions for
Student Services, 2005(111), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.175
Sanlo, R. (2002). Scholarship in student affairs: Thinking outside the triangle, or tabasco on
cantaloupe. NASPA Journal, 39(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1164
Schuck, K. D., & Liddle, B. J. (2001). Religious conflicts experienced by lesbian, gay and
bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(2), 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J236v05n02_07
Shields, J. P., Whitaker, K., Glassman, J., Franks, H. M., & Howard, K. (2011). Impact of
victimization on risk of suicide among lesbian, gay, and bisexual high school students in
San Francisco. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(4), 418-420.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.009
Stevens, R. A., Jr. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college
environment. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 185–206.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0028
Troiden, R. B. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent Health Care,
9(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-0070(88)90056-3
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory
& Review, 1(4), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 84
Vaccaro, A. (2006). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students. In L. A. Gohn & G. R.
Albin (Eds.), Understanding college student subpopulations: A guide for student affairs
professionals (pp. 349-386). Washington, DC: NASPA.
Vaccaro, A., Russell, E. I. A., & Koob, R. M. (2015). Students with minoritized identities of
sexuality and gender in campus contexts: An emergent model. New Directions for
Student Services, 2015(152), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20143
Woodford, M. R., Kolb, C. L., Durocher-Radeka, G., & Javier, G. (2014). Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender ally training programs on campus: Current variations and future
directions. Journal of College Student Development, 55(3), 317–322.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0022
Woodford, M. R., Levy, D., & Wells, N. E. (2012). Sexual prejudices among Christian college
students, denominational teachings, and personal religious beliefs. Review of Religious
Research, 55(1), 105-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-012-0067-0.
Worthen, M. G. F. (2012). Understanding college student attitudes towards LGBT individuals.
Sociological Focus, 45(4), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2012.712857
Yoakam, J. R. (2006). Resources for gay and bisexual students in a Catholic college. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 14(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1403.311
Young, S. L., & McKibban, A. R. (2014). Creating safe places: A collaborative autoethnography
on LGBT social activism. Sexuality & Culture, 18(2), 361–384.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-013-9202-5
Zemsky, B., & Sanlo, R. L. (2005). Do policies matter? New Directions for Student Services,
2005(111), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.169
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 85
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions
1. Tell me more about you (background),
2. How long have you been affiliated with the institution and what is your position/status?
3. What are your current programs & services for LGBT students? What would you like to do in
the future?
4. How were the programs/services developed? How are they funded?
5. What is unique about your program? What sets it apart from others?
6. What are your signature programs and services?
7. How do you illustrate your support for LGBT Students (symbols, rituals)?
8. What was your role in the new policy and structure related to LGBT services?
9. What was the critical incident or catalyst that started the change?
10. Who or what influenced you to become involved?
11. Who has supported this shift in policy? How? What did they do?
12. Who were the key members of the community involved in change?
13. What was happening at the time (culturally, politically, on-campus) that created the
opportunity for this change to occur?
14. What were the conversations like with those who wanted to maintain the traditional stance
and former policies?
15. How would you describe the campus climate before the changes? After the changes?
16. What changes have you noticed with the student? Faculty? Staff?
17. Thinking about the new programs and services, what factors/strategies helped facilitate the
change? What were the real challenges?
18. How did you mitigate these challenges? And are you still facing challenges?
19. What has been the reaction from your peer institutions (religious or otherwise)?
20. What would you say have been the core benefits to doing this? Have there been negative
impacts or consequences?
21. What lessons have you learned that might benefit others?
22. What advice would you give to other institutions who want to be create programs and
services for their LGBT population?
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 86
Interview Questions - Collaborators
1 Tell me more about you (background)
2 How long have you been affiliated with the institution and what is your position/status?
3 What are your current programs & services for LGBT students? What would you like to
do in the future?
4 How were the programs/services developed? How are they funded?
5 What is unique about your program? What sets it apart from others?
6 What are your signature programs and services?
7 How do you illustrate your support for LGBT Students (symbols, rituals)?
8 Who or what influenced you to become involved?
9 How would you describe the campus climate for LGBT Students?
10 What would you say have been the core benefits to doing this? Have there been negative
impacts or consequences?
11 What lessons have you learned that might benefit others?
12 What advice would you give to other institutions who want to be create programs and
services for their LGBT population?
13 How have you integrated spiritual identity and sexual/gender identity into your
programs?
14 Who are your allies and collaborators in programming and services?
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 87
APPENDIX B
Recruitment Email/Letter
Dear [Name],
My name is Kafele J. Khalfani, and I am a doctoral candidate in the University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a research
study focusing on a religiously affiliated university that created programs and services for
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender students. I would like to invite you to take part in this
study. As part of this study, you will be asked to participate in a 60 minute one-on-on interview.
The interviews will be recorded using a digital audio recorder. I will also be conducting a
document analysis reviewing materials including memoranda, meeting agendas & minutes,
program design plans, institutional files, announcements and newspaper articles. Your identity as
a participant will remain confidential at all times during the study.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you would like to join, please complete the
attached interest form. For further questions, please contact Kafele J. Khalfani at
khalfani@usc.edu or 310-622-3061. Thank you in advance for your interest and participation.
Kafele J. Khalfani, Ed.D. candidate
University of Southern California
khalfani@usc.edu
310-622-3061
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 88
APPENDIX C
Consent Form
Research Participant Consent Form
For the research study entitled:
Discovering the Path to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Support at a Religious Institution
I. Purpose of the research study
Kafele J. Khalfani is a student in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You are invited to participate in a research study he is conducting. The purpose of
this research study is to uncover the challenges, behaviors and strategies that slowed for the
creation of programs and services for members of the LGBT community at your university.
II. What you will be asked to do
If you decide to be in this study, you will be asked to participate in a private interview to discuss
your experience in creating/supporting programs and services for LGBT members of your
university community. Interviews will be audiotaped for transcription purposes only.
Your participation in this study will take a total of 60 minutes.
III. Foreseeable risks or discomforts
Sometimes when people are asked to think about their feelings, they feel sad or anxious. If
you would like to talk to someone about your feelings at any time, you can call toll-free, 24
hours a day:
San Diego Mental Health Hotline at 1-800-479-3339
IV. Benefits
While there may be no direct benefit to you from participating in this study, the indirect benefit
of participating will be knowing that you helped researchers better understand the steps to
developing LGBT supportive programs at a religious institution. It will also add to the literature
on the topic.
V. Confidentiality
Any information provided and/or identifying records will remain confidential and kept in a
locked file and/or password-protected computer file in the researcher’s office for a minimum of
five years. All data collected from you will be coded with a number or pseudonym (fake name).
Your real name will not be used. The results of this research project may be made public and
information quoted in professional journals and meetings, but information from this study will
only be reported as a group, and not individually.
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 89
VI. Compensation
You will receive no compensation for your participation in the study.
VII. Voluntary Nature of this Research
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You do not have to do this, and you can
refuse to answer any question or quit at any time. Deciding not to participate or not answering
any of the questions will have no effect on any benefits you’re entitled to, like your health care,
or your employment or grades.
You can withdraw from this study at any time without penalty.
VIII. Contact Information
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact either:
1) Kafele J. Khalfani
Email: khalfani@usc.edu
Phone: 310-622-3061
2) Courtney Malloy, PhD
Email: clm@rossier.usc.edu
Phone: 213-740-1627
I have read and understand this form, and consent to the research it describes to me. I have
received a copy of this consent form for my records.
Signature of Participant Date
Name of Participant (Printed)
Signature of Investigator Date
PATH TO LGBT SUPPORT AT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 90
APPENDIX D
Historical Timeline
1990 PRISM started
2000 Sexual Orientation added to non-discrimination policy
2001 Rays of Light founded
2009 Ally program founded
PRISM Dance hosted on-campus
2011 Non-discrimination policy amended to include gender identity and expression
2012 First Drag Show
LGBT Alumni Group Started
2013 Additional classes focused on LGBT topics added
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study aimed to uncover the challenges, behaviors and strategies at St. Aelred University that allowed for the creation of supportive programs for their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. This study was guided by three research questions: (1) What were the strategies used to create and realize a more inclusive space for LGBT students
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student center: a promising practice study
PDF
Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty
PDF
The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging
PDF
Elementary principals attitudes, perceptions, and their ability to support students with autism and emotional behavioral disturbances in inclusive settings
PDF
Disclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identity among U.S. service members after repeal of LGBT military service bans
PDF
Promising practices for building a college-going culture for LatinX students: a case study of a large comprehensive high school
PDF
Promising practices for building a college-going culture: a case study of a comprehensive high school
PDF
Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment
PDF
A customer relationship management approach to improving certificate completion
PDF
Transgender patients’ perceptions of healthcare: A study of gender minority stress and resilience factors in predicting healthcare behavioral intentions
PDF
Middle school GSAs: an analysis of strategies used in Los Angeles County
PDF
Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study
PDF
Opening interpretations: visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, first-year studio faculty innovate for improvement
PDF
The dedicated and the committed: an examination of burnout within peer support for transgender, queer, and non-binary volunteers
PDF
Preparing student affairs administrators to support college students of color with mental health needs
PDF
Building a college-going culture: a case study of a continuation high school
PDF
The mentoring experience: a case study of a mentoring program for first-generation students transitioning to a postsecondary institution
PDF
Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies
PDF
Promising practices: promoting and sustaining a college-going culture
PDF
Equitable access to culturally relevant public-school music programs
Asset Metadata
Creator
Khalfani, Kafele Jahi
(author)
Core Title
Discovering the path to lesbian gay bisexual transgender support at a religious institution
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/18/2019
Defense Date
04/18/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
acceptance,affirming,bisexual,Catholic,college,Gay,gender expression,gender identity,Higher education,lesbian,OAI-PMH Harvest,religious,sexual orientation,support,transgender,University
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Malloy, Courtney (
committee chair
)
Creator Email
kafele@gmail.com,khalfani@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-140169
Unique identifier
UC11675787
Identifier
etd-KhalfaniKa-7203.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-140169 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-KhalfaniKa-7203.pdf
Dmrecord
140169
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Khalfani, Kafele Jahi
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
acceptance
affirming
bisexual
gender expression
gender identity
lesbian
sexual orientation
support
transgender