University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

(USC Thesis Other)

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Sense of Belonging and Inclusion Among Non-Christian Students at Jesuit Catholic
Universities: A Qualitative Study
by
Angélica Nohemi Quiñónez

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Angélica Nohemi Quiñónez 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Angélica Nohemi Quñónez certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Ruth Chung
Fabiola Bagula
Patricia Elaine Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to better understand how students from minoritized
religious traditions and non-religious belief systems experience a sense of belonging and
inclusion at Jesuit Catholic universities. Specifically, the study sought to determine the influence
of Christian privilege on the experience of non-Christian students, how students find and build
community, whether Jesuit Catholic universities provide spaces for non-Christian students to
exercise their beliefs, and how the religious and spiritual development of all students is
supported. This study implemented a qualitative approach and utilized individual interviews with
16 non-Christian and four Christian undergraduate students. As this study took place amid the
COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted in a virtual setting and limited to student
participants from the second year through final year of undergraduate study. Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979, 2005) Ecological Systems Theory and Hurtado et al.’s (1998, 1999) Enacting Diverse
Learning Environments Theory served as the theoretical framework for this study to understand
the personal and educational environments of non-Christian students. The findings from this
study indicate a need for Jesuit Catholic universities to establish more inclusive policies that
welcome the free expression of religious and spiritual traditions, the need for more intentional
interfaith programming and dialogue, and ongoing support and education for the campus
community.
Keywords: Jesuit education, inclusion, sense of belonging, Christian privilege, non-Christian,
religion, interreligious, religious diversity, interfaith, Catholic, higher education

v
Dedication
To my parents, Nohemi Janet (née Artavia) Quiñónez and Miguel Angel Quiñónez. Your
sacrifices gave me wings; your love made me soar. Thank you.

vi
Acknowledgements
No single journey in my life has been without companions. That this dissertation was
written and completed, from start to finish, during the Covid-19 pandemic and an unexpected
career transition is a testament to the love and support, of many, that helped propel me past each
challenge.
To Dr. Ruth Chung and Dr. Fabiola Bagula, I am grateful for the feedback you provided,
but, most of all, for the care and concern you showed during the process. To my committee chair,
Dr. Patricia Tobey, the grace, kindness, support, and patience that you showed our dissertation
cohort provided the encouragement we needed in a time of uncertainty and challenge. I am
grateful. To Drs. Jennifer Phillips, Darline Robles, Maria Ott, Themistocles Sparangis, and Carey
Regur, thank you for your support throughout the doctoral program. To my cohort 12 family, I
am truly blessed by the experience we shared. You are extraordinary. Jen, we took all but one
class together! Thank you for the support, the laughs, the friendship, and the sisterhood.
To Richard Alvia, co-investigator extraordinaire, you jumped in when the unexpected hit
even when you faced challenges of your own. Thank you enough for treating my study as your
own. To Thanh Ly, thank you for always seeing the best in me and for helping me along this
journey in ways large and small. You were my cheerleader from start to finish in all ways.
Mariana, Maggie, and Lorraine, the girls of the 318, my sisters, you have been with me
since that very first degree and have supported me through every educational and career decision
I have made since then. I am grateful for your continued support and understanding.
To Nicole Wong and Sarah Manzano, I can never thank you enough for the ways you
supported me during my doctoral journey. From cheering me on to watching me as I attended
class while on trips to proofreading my projects and papers, to hearing me go through the ups

vii
and downs caused by unexpected challenges, you have been there through it all. Thank you for
being the friends and sisters that checked in, rooted me on, and understood and supported the
silence and MIA status that was sometimes necessary. To Rosa Alvarado, I would not have taken
the plunge into a doctoral program without your support and nudging. I am so glad I listened.
You helped me get to the door and supported me as I walked through. Thank you for cheering
me on and for your undying belief that saw the leader in me that others failed to see.
To the rocks in my life, my parents, Miguel Angel and Nohemi Janet Quiñónez, no
amount of gratitude will ever be enough. Every sacrifice you’ve made, every dream you’ve
dreamed for me, every way you’ve loved me, and the freedom you gave me to choose my own
path brought me here. You instilled in me a love for reading, a strong work ethic, and a
remarkable amount of resilience. You supported my curious nature by allowing me to ask
questions and to find answers. When you told me to go to college, I don’t think any of us thought
I’d go from first generation college graduate to earning a doctorate. And, yet here we are. This
accomplishment, this moment, is as much yours as it is mine. Thank you for everything. I love
you. AMDG

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xii
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6
Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................ 6
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 8
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 11
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Catholic Higher Education ................................................................................................ 15
Christian Privilege ............................................................................................................ 22
Campus Climate and Student Development ..................................................................... 29
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ......................................................................... 45
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 55
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 55
Methodological Approach ................................................................................................ 56

ix
Population of Focus .......................................................................................................... 57
Data Collection and Interview Protocol ............................................................................ 58
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 60
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 61
Positionality of the Researcher ......................................................................................... 64
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 66
Study Participants ............................................................................................................. 67
Findings by Research Question ........................................................................................ 88
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 122
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 123
Purpose of the Study, Research Questions, and Methodology ....................................... 123
Findings........................................................................................................................... 124
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 131
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 155
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 166
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 166
References ................................................................................................................................... 169
Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol ...................................................................... 189
Appendix B: Theoretical Alignment Matrix ............................................................................... 192
Appendix C: IRB Approval ........................................................................................................ 193
Appendix D: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 194

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Non-Christian and Non-Religious Students 69
Table 2: Catholic and Non-Catholic Christian Students 84
Table 3: Faculty, Administration, and Staff Participants 87
Table 4: Eight Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 1 137
Table 5: Eight Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 2 143
Table 6: Eight Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 3 148
Table 7: Eight Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 4 153
Table 8: Implementation of CIPP Model on Recommendations 158
Table A1: Semistructured Interview Protocol Questions 190
Appendix B: Theoretical Alignment Matrix 192

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ecological Systems Theory 46
Figure 2: Enacting Diverse Learning Environments Model 50
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework 53
Figure 4: Eights Steps of Change Model 133
Figure 5: Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Evaluation Model 156

xii
List of Abbreviations
AJCU Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The Hart-Cellar Act, also known as the Immigration Act of 1965, opened the doors for an
influx of non-European immigrants to enter the United States. The act eliminated immigration
quotas that were in place since 1924 and allowed for two groups to enter the United States: the
immediate relatives of United States citizens and immigrants with special status, including
refugees and those that could fill necessary labor positions in the country (Davidson, 2008). The
new wave of immigrants brought with it a multiplicity of religious traditions that changed the
religious demographics of a once mostly Protestant Christian nation. A record number of
Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs made their way to the United States and the
growth of these traditions has not slowed (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Davidson, 2008; Eck, 2001;
Jasso, 2003; Wuthnow, 2005). While these groups are still small compared to Christian-
identified individuals, they are leaving a mark and challenge the country to protect religious
freedoms in a pluralistic society (Eck, 2001). Wuthnow (2005) writes that the religious diversity
of the United States poses a “significant cultural challenge” (p. xv). As with diversity of any
kind, the nation is challenged to encounter difference and exercise hospitality, compassion,
understanding, and acceptance through opportunities for dialogue. College and university
campuses are experiencing increased religious diversity and “as microcosms of American
society, colleges and universities in the United States must practice these very principles and
endeavor to create campus climates that are welcoming to students from all faith traditions”
(Bryant, 2006, p. 2).
Bowman and Smedley (2012) write that discussions of inequality and “minority students”
normally pertain to racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students, first-generation students,
and women in STEM. Rockenbach et al. (2020) assert that “religion has been continuously de-
2

prioritized as an aspect of diversity work on most campuses” (p. 5). Hailu et al. (2018) agree
adding that “religious beliefs as a diversity variable that impacts institutional climate has been
overlooked historically but should be a key consideration for student achievement in higher
education” (p. 14). There is a need to broaden and deepen conceptions of minority status to
include religious minorities in discussions of diversity in light of growing interest in interfaith
dialogue and instances of interreligious conflict on campuses and elsewhere (Bowman &
Smedley, 2012; Patel, 2007; Patel & Meyer, 2009). Discussions of a positive campus climate
often center on the sense of belonging and overall experience of racial/ethnic minority students.
Hurtado (1992) suggests that a positive racial campus climate reflects inclusion of people of
color; a curriculum that celebrates and acknowledges the challenges faced by communities of
color; overall support for students of color; and a commitment to diversity. The same applies to
the experiences of religious minority and unaffiliated students at American universities. Colleges
serve students from various religious and spiritual traditions, including a growing population of
students who identify as atheist, agnostic, or “none” (Bowman & Small, 2012; Pew Research
Center, 2015). Recent research suggests that the religious and spiritual dimensions of the campus
climate are important to the perception of a school’s overall campus climate (Fosnacht &
Broderick, 2017).
Background of the Problem
According to the Pew Research Center (2019), the religious landscape of the United
States is changing with the Christian population declining twelve percentage points in the past
decade, from 77% to 65%, and the population of the unaffiliated, or “nones,” rising, from 17% to
26%. A previously released Pew Research Center (2015) study also revealed that the population
of those affiliated with non-Christian religious traditions rose from, 4.7% to 5.9%, with growth
3

among Muslims and Hindus. The overall change in the religious makeup of the country also
leads to an increase in non-Christian and religiously unaffiliated students in American colleges
and universities. As the religious diversity in the student body increases, Jesuit universities and
their traditionally Catholic campuses face the challenge of shifting to become more inclusive
campus communities (Currie, 2013; LaBelle & Kendall; Peck & Stick, 2008).
One challenge to creating a more inclusive Catholic campus is the presence of “Christian
privilege.” Christian privilege includes the “conscious and subconscious advantages often
afforded the Christian faith in America’s colleges and universities” (Seifert, 2007, p. 11).
According to Bowman and Smedley (2012), such privilege is unquestioned as academic
calendars favor Christian holidays and dietary considerations are rarely available for
practitioners of non-Christian traditions. Christian students have the privilege of more dining
options and often see positive portrayals of their faith tradition in the media (Seifert, 2007). At a
campus where Christian privilege is evident, non-Christian students may feel more susceptible to
discrimination and oppression (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Clark & Brimhall-Vargas, 2003;
Schlosser, 2003).
At a Jesuit Catholic university, founded on western Christian principles, the connection to
Christian privilege is evident in the curriculum, mission, identity, and values. Attendance at a
Jesuit Catholic university also exposes students to overtly religious symbolism in the form of on-
campus churches or chapels and explicitly Christian iconography. Such overt reminders of
Christianity may make religious minorities feel unwelcome and, according to Bowman and
Smedley (2012) “create discomfort for non-affiliated and/or atheist students” (p. 755). According
to Rockenbach and Mayhew’s (2014) review of recent studies, students from minority religious
identities, including those with no affiliation, experience marginalization and exclusion on
4

university campuses. A study by Fosnacht and Broderick (2017) revealed that student perception
of the religious and spiritual climate of the university is an important factor in how students
perceive the campus climate. The experience of a negative or unwelcoming campus climate can
be detrimental to a student’s sense of belonging and overall collegiate experience. Students that
experience a lack of sense of belonging may express dissatisfaction with their academic and
social environments (Tinto, 1975), conversely students who experience a sense of belonging
experience positive outcomes, such as higher academic achievement, higher retention rates, and
positive well-being (Means & Pyne, 2017). According to Rockenbach and Mayhew (2014), the
worldview diversity inherent in the inclusion of various religious and non-religious identities and
the space and support for such expression can lead to a positive climate and spiritual
development for students.
Edwards (2018) writes that an interest in interfaith matters, with a focus on diversity and
tolerance, has taken shape in higher education in the United States as a result of international
events since the start of the 21st century. As a result of international religious violence and
ongoing religious tensions domestically, according to Edwards (2018), U.S. higher education is
moving in the direction of incorporating religious diversity education into the curriculum and as
an institutional priority to (a) promote religious literacy; (b) attend to students’ identity
development; and (c) “to broaden the discourse on diversity and multiculturalism” (p. 165). Until
recently, however, the conversation on religion and spirituality in U.S. higher education
remained minimal. Edwards (2018), Marshall (2010), Prothero (2007), and Wimberley (2003)
attribute the lack of conversation in the United States, and within educational institutions, to the
Western understanding of the separation of religion and government and a fear of promoting one
religion over another. Prothero (2007) believes that the lack of conversation leads to religious
5

illiteracy, which can lead to a misunderstanding of religious minorities, hate crimes,
misunderstandings with law enforcement, and even the difference between life and death.
For college and university students a sense of belonging is important to their identity
development (Strayhorn, 2012) and spiritual and religious development (Astin et al., 2010).
Edwards (2018) writes that the exploration of religion and spirituality and interfaith dialogue is a
matter of social justice. The sentiment is echoed by Joshi (2020) who also suggests
understanding faith traditions outside of Christianity as a way to mitigate bias. At public and
private institutions, the conversation on religious diversity and interfaith issues, in the past
twenty years, has led to the creation of interfaith programming and multifaith spaces on campus
(Edwards, 2008). The challenge, however, remains understanding the role of Christian privilege
on students from minoritized religious traditions and belief systems. Joshi (2020) writes that, in
the United States, Christian privilege is inherent in structures, social norms, language, and
culture in ways that normalize Christianity, consciously or unconsciously, and otherizes and
disadvantages non-Christian religious traditions and belief systems. Even if secular, public and
private colleges and universities, according to Edwards (2018), must confront and acknowledge
Christian privilege before and during the process of creating interfaith programming as their
institutions are also heavily influenced by “the historical and political Christian hegemony in this
country” (p. 173).
At Jesuit Catholic colleges and universities, creating a sense of welcome and inclusion
for non-Christian students takes place within a campus community representative of Christian
hegemony. While Catholics are considered religious minorities within the hierarchy of Christian
hegemony (Joshi, 2020; Schlosser, 2003), the very foundation of Catholic Jesuit universities
6

along with their curricula, environment, and calendar represent Christianity, thereby, establishing
it as the dominant religious tradition on campus.
Statement of the Problem
With an increasingly diverse student body, Jesuit Catholic universities face the challenge
of creating inclusive campus communities for non-Christian students to foster a positive
experience that leads to a greater sense of belonging, welcome, and inclusion (Astin, 1999;
LaBelle & Kendall, 2011). Students that are religious minorities or religiously unaffiliated
experience a lack of sense of belonging and inclusion at American universities (Ahmadi & Cole,
2014). A recent IDEALS survey found that between 27% and 58% of students from minoritized
religious traditions feel that their campuses are welcoming of religious diversity (Rockenbach et
al., 2020). Students from non-Christian traditions that experience feelings of exclusion and a lack
of sense of belonging experience higher attrition rates and are less likely to graduate from the
institution (Astin, 1993; Craft & Yang, 2019; Patten & Rice, 2009). Within the context of a
Jesuit Catholic university, where the Christian narrative is dominant, non-Christian students face
the challenge of exercising their belief systems within a place of Christian privilege (Cole &
Ahmadi, 2010) and feeling included at the institution (Mayhew et al., 2014).
Stakeholders
According to a report by De Brey et al. (2021) at the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), there are 879 religiously affiliated colleges and universities in the United
States representing over 50 distinct religious affiliations. As of 2018, 228 institutions are
Catholic-affiliated while 180 institutions are affiliated with non-Catholic Christian
denominations (De Brey et al., 2021). The primary stakeholders for this study are Jesuit Catholic
universities in the United States, their students, their faculties and staff, their board members, and
7

donors. Currently, there are 28 U.S. member institutions in the Association of Jesuit Colleges
and Universities ([AJCU]; 2020). This study seeks to explore non-Christian students’ overall
sense of belonging and inclusion at these institutions as well as to understand the institutions’
current response to the needs of students from minoritized religious traditions and belief systems.
This study was conducted at an AJCU member institution on the West Coast. Additional
stakeholders of this study include other Catholic and Christian universities that serve religiously
diverse student populations and seek to create welcoming and inclusive campus environments for
non-Christian students.
Organizational Context and Mission
To protect the anonymity of the participating organization a pseudonym was used
throughout this study. West Coast Jesuit University (WCJU) is a mid-sized urban Catholic
University located at the geographical center of a major city in the western United States. It is
sponsored by the Society of Jesus, an all-male religious order widely known as the Jesuits.
Founded in 1855, WJCU is one of 27 Jesuit universities in the United States and one of 188
Jesuit universities worldwide. The university serves a total student population of nearly 11,000
students representing 50 states, 100 countries, and 49 languages. The religious demographics of
the university include over 25 represented religious traditions with less than 35% identifying as
either Catholic or Protestant Christian and nearly 70% of students identifying with a non-
Christian tradition or no religious tradition. A survey conducted by the admissions office
reported that non-Christian and non-religious students chose WCJU over other universities
because of its mission and values, location, academic reputation, diversity and inclusion, and
reputation as a progressive social justice university.
8

Among the Jesuit values espoused by the university, WCJU focuses on three in
particular: cura personalis (care for the whole person), being and forming people for others, and
a commitment to diversity. WCJU’s dedication to community, diversity, and embrace of the
“commonality of humanity” openly invites students from all faith traditions to contribute to the
university’s mission, vision, and values.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the role of Christian privilege on the
sense of belonging and inclusion of non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students at Jesuit
Catholic universities. This study sought to address the following questions:
1. How is Christian privilege perceived by non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated
students?
2. What role does Christian privilege play in the lives of non-Christian and non-
religiously affiliated students at Jesuit Catholic universities?
3. To what extent does Christian privilege shape the sense of belonging and inclusion of
non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students?
4. What challenges do non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students face in
finding opportunities to exercise their beliefs on-campus?
5. How are schools helping students develop various religious and non-religious
identities and the space and support for such expression?
Significance of the Study
There exists a paucity of research related to the sense of belonging and inclusion of non-
Christian students at Catholic postsecondary institutions. This study sought to contribute to the
conversation and to support future research and initiatives focused on religious pluralism,
9

multifaith dialogue, and religious inclusion in higher education. While several studies exist on
religious minorities at public universities (Bowman & Smedley, 2012; Cole & Ahmadi, 2010;
Fosnacht & Broderick, 2018; Harter et al., 2018; Johnson & Laurence, 2012; Mayhew & Bryant,
2012; Possamai & Brackenreg, 2009; Rockenbach & Mayhew, 2013, 2014; Rockenbach et al.,
2015; Small & Bowman, 2011), limited research exists on the experience of religious minorities
in higher education at religiously affiliated schools. Of the studies that are available, most focus
on the need to welcome students and create inclusive environments at Catholic colleges and
universities (Labelle & Kendall, 2016).
Catholic colleges and universities are experiencing an increase in students that are neither
Catholic nor Christian with 53% identifying as non-Catholic and 24% identifying as non-
Christian (Stolzenberg et al., 2020). In the case of Jesuit Catholic universities, the number of
non-Catholic and non-Christian students continues to grow. As these schools experience the
changing religious landscape it becomes necessary to understand how non-Christian students are
experiencing the campus climate and how to better serve such students. As Labelle and Kendall
(2016) write, “As a Catholic college or university has a connection to an explicit faith, it
nevertheless, needs to be welcoming and inclusive of others who do not share that faith” (p. 4).
This study will shed light on the experience, at a Jesuit Catholic university, of students from
minoritized religious traditions or non-affiliation.
This study benefits the Jesuit Catholic university community, non-Christian students, as
well as other religiously affiliated colleges and universities. Jesuit Catholic universities believe
in the care of the whole person (cura personalis). In particular, the university at the center of this
study strives to build a “beloved community” where appreciation and understanding of diversity,
in all its iterations, exists to create an atmosphere of learning and justice. Understanding the
10

experience of students from various religious traditions and belief systems helps to promote and
create a culture where all are welcome, and all belong.
The model for Jesuit Catholic universities and campus ministry departments, which serve
students of all faiths, must adapt to the changes of diverse learning environments with a
multiplicity of cultures and traditions. This study benefits campus ministry offices on Jesuit
Catholic universities whose charge is to serve the Catholic/Christian and non-Christian
communities. This study sought to shed light on the experience of students outside of the
Christian majority who may also be on their own journeys of faith and spiritual development.
More importantly, this study explored the needs of non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic
universities with the intention of informing universities and their campus ministry offices about
the need to expand their support and outreach to campus community members from other
traditions and belief systems. The hope is that this study will lead to the development of
authentic programming that will invite students of all traditions to a place of welcome,
belonging, and unhindered expression.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) Ecological Systems Theory (EST) and the Enacting
Diverse Learning Environments Theory (DLE) of Hurtado et al. (1998, 1999) were the combined
theoretical frameworks for this study. Bronfenbrenner’s model divides an environment into
nested systems of shared characteristics of the individual and their environments.
Bronfenbrenner (1975, 2005) contends that human beings both create the environments in which
they live and are influenced by those same environments in a reciprocal relationship. EST was
used to examine students of minoritized religious traditions or belief systems or “nones” through
the individual ecosystem they bring to campus. The lens of EST aided in examining the students’
11

varying backgrounds and the contexts with which they interact, outside influences (i.e. current
events, family, etc.) that can alter a student’s experience, historical events, and social influences.
Hurtado et al.’s (1998, 1999) DLE framework seeks to understand the dimensions of
campus climate. DLE was originally developed to understand campus climate in regard to racial
and ethnic diversity but was used in this study to examine the campus climate perceived by
students from non-religious or minoritized religious traditions and belief systems. In this study,
DLE examined the campus climate to which a student enters. The college environment is one of
complex interconnections that influence a student’s development and experience, including in
the areas of religious and spiritual development and sense of belonging.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
There were several limitations to this research study. Of 25 represented religious
traditions and belief systems on campus, the sample was not representative of all faith and belief
systems within the community. Despite attempts to recruit students through various means,
major religious traditions such as Hinduism and Sikhism, were not represented in the study.
Traditions with lesser representation on campus, such as Bah’ai or Jainism, were also not
represented in this study. This may have occurred due to the pandemic or because of their lack of
representation within religious student organizations. Lack of participation from members of
traditions not represented here may also stem from their overall experience as members of the
campus community and may, in that silence, speak to the need for this and similar studies.
This study took place during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic, which
limited the sample population to students in their second through final undergraduate years at the
university. With the Fall and Spring semesters taking place online, the campus climate for the
12

academic year 2020-2021 was unlike years past and presented challenges to creating a sense of
community among students. Therefore, students sampled in this study spoke mostly of their
experience of having been on campus in the past. Despite an initial interest of nearly 40
participants, prospective participants often cited Zoom fatigue as a reason for not moving
forward with their participation.
Delimitations
This study, while providing a glimpse into the experience of non-Christian students at a
Jesuit Catholic university, cannot be generalized for the 27 remaining Jesuit colleges and
universities in the United States, non-Jesuit Catholic universities, nor for religiously affiliated
schools representing other traditions. The university in this study is in a highly diverse and
progressive city. The experience of non-Christian students at other Jesuit Catholic universities
and the programming in place at those universities may be different depending on the region and
each university’s distinct character, mission, and values.
Definition of Terms
Christian Privilege refers to the conscious and subconscious benefits or advantages
granted to Christians over non-Christians (Bowman & Smedley, 2012; Seifert, 2007).
Coronaviruses, which can cause illness in humans or animals, were initially discovered in
the late 1960s and named for the crown-like spikes on their surface (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2020; World Health Organization, 2020). Several coronaviruses cause
respiratory infections ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases. COVID-19 is the
infectious disease caused by a coronavirus detected in late 2019, which turned into a global
pandemic (World Health Organization, 2020).
13

Cura Personalis is a Jesuit concept, which translates as “care of the whole person,” and
suggests attention to the needs of others, respect for the person, and an appreciation for each
person’s unique gifts and contributions (Manney, 2017).
Jesuit Catholic Universities are institutions of higher education that have a historical
connection or sponsorship by the Catholic religious order of the Society of Jesus (LaBelle &
Kendall, 2016).
Jummah, or Jum’ah, is Friday of the Muslim week, which includes the obligation of
communal worship for adult male Muslims (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2020).
Magis is considered a “striving for excellence, a determination to do more, an
unwillingness to settle for the familiar” (Manney, 2017, p. 169).
Masjid translates to “place of prostration” in Arabic and is the term form mosque, which
is a place of prayer in the Islamic tradition (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019).
People for Others was originally spoken as “men and women for others” by Pedro
Arrupe, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, in 1973. The phrase refers to the Jesuit
value of justice in solidarity with the poor and marginalized (Manney, 2017).
Religious Minorities are any persons that identify with a formalized system of belief or
marginalized religion that is non-Christian (Bowman & Smedley, 2012; Schmalzbauer, 2013).
Religiously Unaffiliated or None(s) are any persons that do not identify with a particular
system of belief or religious tradition; this includes persons identifying as atheist, agnostic,
humanist, other and none (Bowman et al., 2016; Liddell & Stedman, 2011).
Shabbat, or Sabbath, is the Jewish day of rest that takes place from sunset on Friday to
sundown on Saturday (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2020).
14

Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This chapter provides the overall context
of the study, the problem of practice, information on the organization, research questions, and
important definitions. Chapter Two provides an extensive overview of the literature in four areas:
Jesuit and Catholic education, Christian privilege, religious and spiritual development in higher
education, and challenges for students from minoritized religious traditions and belief systems.
Chapter Three discusses the methodology and research design of the study, data collection,
analysis, and ethical considerations. Chapter Four provides a thorough analysis of the findings.
Chapter Five discusses the findings of the study and provides recommendations for practice and
future research.

15

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Catholic higher education, according to Dosen (2012), has served both Catholics and
non-Catholics for over a century. In the past several years, however, the population of Catholics
at Catholic colleges and universities has dropped to 46.7% nationally (Stolzenberg et al., 2020).
This review of literature explores Jesuit Catholic higher education in an increasingly religiously
pluralistic environment with a focus on the sense of belonging and inclusion experienced by non-
Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities. Three key areas are discussed: (a) Jesuit
Catholic higher education; (b) Christian privilege; and (c) campus climate and student
development.
Catholic Higher Education
The Second Vatican Council
Catholic higher education and Catholic identity faced significant challenges in the latter
half of the 20th century. According to Dosen (2012), while liberal Protestant colleges and
universities became more secularized through the end of the 19th and into the 20th century,
“Catholic higher education maintained a uniquely Catholic identity through the end of World
War II” (p. 31). By the 1950s, however, Catholic higher education experienced three stimuli that
marked the beginning of change: criticism of the quality of Catholic higher education, the
Second Vatican Council, and the increase of available federal funding for colleges and
universities resulting from the Serviceman’s Readjustment Bill of 1944, known widely as the
G.I. Bill (Currie, 2013; Dosen, 2012). Of these, the changes that emerged from the Second
Vatican Council, the first Church Council in nearly a century, proved to be the most influential to
Catholic higher education.
16

The Second Vatican Council (“Council”) of 1962–1965 marked a significant turning
point in the history of the Catholic Church (“Church”) and, by extension, Catholic education.
LaBelle and Kendall (2011, 2016) write that the Church was taking a renewed look at itself and
examining its relevancy amid changing times by learning from its past and the signs of its
present. The ongoing war in Vietnam, riots on college campuses, and the assassinations of John
F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr. presented challenges to both society
and Catholic identity (Dosen, 2012; LaBelle and Kendall, 2016). The Council questioned its
place in the modern world and whether it would counter modernity or embrace it.
The Council opened the Church to the modern world. Council documents envisioned the
Church as part of the changing world and more open to ecumenical dialogue, diversity, and
participation. Gaudium et Spes (1965, section 4) urged the Church to continue reading the “signs
of the times” and embrace the social and cultural transformations of the modern world. The
Council, in Gaudium et Spes, also called for respect for the dignity of the human person (sections
12–22), an embrace of the human community (sections 23–32), a concern for social justice
(sections 23–32), economic justice (sections 64–66), peacebuilding (sections 77–82), and the
creation of an international community to study the causes of war and promote peace (sections
83–93). The Council understood that embracing the modern world also meant embracing the
diversity of cultures and religious traditions therein. To address the need for ecumenism, Nostra
Aetate (1965) called for “dialogue and cooperation” (section 2) with people of other religious
traditions and recognized the shared questions, about the meaning and purpose of life and
humanity, between them. Currie (2013) writes that the Church’s fresh focus created a sense of
enthusiasm within Catholic higher education.
17

Land O’Lakes Statement
Faced with significant change in the church, Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C, the President of
the University of Notre Dame convened a conference of 26 Catholic educational leaders, in Land
O’Lakes, Wisconsin, to discuss the changes that needed to take place in Catholic higher
education and to “study the nature and role of the contemporary Catholic university (Notre
Dame, 1967, p. 2). At stake was the Catholic University’s relationship with ecclesial authority,
academic freedom, academic commitment, and Catholic higher education’s response to the
Council’s call for a new understanding of lived Christianity. By the end of the conference,
participants drafted the Land O’Lakes Statement: The Idea of the Catholic University (“Land
O’Lakes Statement”) and established a 10-point roadmap for the modern Catholic university.
Central to the Land O’Lakes Statement (Notre Dame, 1967) is the establishment of the
autonomous Catholic university as an institution of academic freedom and academic excellence
that engages in public service and critical reflection. Those present at Land O’Lakes imagined an
undergraduate education “truly geared to modern society” where students “come to a basic
understanding of the actual world in which [they] live” (Notre Dame, 1967, p. 8). This vision for
the Catholic university proposes a university without boundaries or barriers that “draws
knowledge and understanding from all traditions of mankind” (Notre Dame, 1967, p.8). As the
Church shifted to meet the needs of modern times, Catholic higher education shifted towards
greater openness to the demands of the times, an environment open to new advances and
diversity in scholarship, and an embrace of varied cultures and traditions.
Ex Corde Ecclesiae
In 1990, Pope John Paul II issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which “called for Catholic
universities to renew their identities as being both ‘universities’ and ‘Catholic’” (Peck & Stick,
18

2008). Dosen (2012) writes that post-Council and the Land O’Lakes Statement, several Catholic
universities allowed their Catholic and religious identity to diminish in favor of academic
freedom and the focus on social justice. In response, Ex Corde Ecclesiae conveyed the pope’s
understanding of what Catholic higher education should be (LaBelle & Kendall, 2016) and was
meant to assist institutions in accomplishing their missions, being more in line with the Church,
and re-committing to their Catholic identity (Peck & Stick, 2008).
Ex Corde Ecclesiae, however, reiterated the call to a more open Church. While the
document focused on maintaining Catholic identity in a changing world, the document also
renewed the call for continued dialogue between Catholics and non-Catholics in the context of
the university. While the document called for the respect of the Catholic character of the
institution by non-Catholics, it also maintained a respect for religious liberty and valued
interreligious dialogue as a means of understanding the value present in every tradition (Ex
Corde Ecclesiae, 1990, sections 27 and 47). Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the Land O’Lakes Statement
and the changes made at the Council, became the catalysts of transformation for Catholic higher
education at the latter half of the 20th century and continue to influence it today, including the
mission and vision of Jesuit colleges and universities.
Jesuit Higher Education
Founded in 1534 by St. Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus [Society], better known
as the Jesuits, is the largest male religious order within the Roman Catholic Church having over
16,000 priests, brothers, scholastics, and novices worldwide (Society of Jesus, n.d.). The Jesuits
run 188 higher education institutions around the world with 27 located within 17 states in the
United States (Jesuits.org) as part of the “largest and most united network of Catholic higher
19

education within the United States” (Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities [AJCU],
2010, p. 4).
In 2010, the AJCU, published The Jesuit, Catholic Mission of U.S. Jesuit Colleges and
Universities (AJCU, 2010). The document divided Ex Corde Ecclesiae into six areas with which
to guide Jesuit higher education. Of importance to the AJCU was for Jesuit institutions to share a
common mission in facing the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. The presidents of
each of the Jesuit colleges and universities arrived at a consensus on how to proceed as partners
in mission in six areas: (a) the defining characteristics of a Jesuit University; (b) apostolic
rationale for Jesuit education and mission; (c) collaboration and governance; (d) Jesuits and
Jesuit communities; (d) presidents, rectors, and provincials; and (f) relationship with bishops
(AJCU, 2010; LaBelle & Kendall, 2016). Within the document, the AJCU expresses its
commitment to educating the whole person and its commitment to educating a diverse body of
students, including students of various religious and cultural backgrounds (AJCU, 2010).
The AJCU followed its unified proclamation of Jesuit mission with a self-evaluation for
its member schools known as Some Characteristics of Jesuit Colleges and Universities: A Self-
Evaluation Instrument (2013). The AJCU sought to have member schools use the instrument to
evaluate their institutions in the areas of mission, service, and campus culture in light of Jesuit
mission and tradition. LaBelle and Kendall (2016) write that the document’s aim was to measure
the shared characteristics among Jesuit colleges and universities. The document, however, also
named the tensions and challenges of being both a Jesuit and Catholic university in a diverse
environment, stating that, “we struggle to maintain a vibrant identity in the face of increasingly
uncatechised Catholics and increasing religious and moral diversity on our campuses” (AJCU,
2013, p.14). The ongoing tension of desiring to maintain Catholic identity while embracing
20

diversity led the AJCU to question what a Catholic campus culture looks like in the face of
religious and moral diversity on campus.
LaBelle and Kendall (2016) write that “a number of areas of concern naturally arise
regarding the Catholic, Jesuit campus culture” (p. 279). In their study on the characteristics of
Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States, LaBelle and Kendall examined the
leadership, campus offices, services available to students, and core curriculum of the then 28
Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States. Using the AJCU instrument for self-
evaluation and available documentation from each of the institutions, the researchers sought to
find the common characteristics of the member institutions. Regarding religious diversity, the
researchers found that campus offices and services available to students have changed to become
more ecumenical and inclusive (LaBelle & Kendall, 2011, 2016). The researchers note post-
conciliar changes made by Jesuit institutions to provide for the religious and spiritual needs of a
religiously diverse community. These changes included mission and ministry offices focused on
serving the entire campus community by offering opportunities for reflection, seminars, retreats,
service opportunities, along with focused activities, organizations, and opportunities for non-
Catholic students (LaBelle & Kendall, 2011, 2016). However, Jesuit institutions continue to
drive their mission, identity, and values in a pluralistic world where the tension between being
Catholic and Jesuit and welcoming and inclusive remains.
Central to the Jesuit educational mission is the core ideal of cura personalis. Geger (2014)
offers a summary of three common definitions for cura personalis: (a) education of the whole
person that includes the intellectual, moral, and spiritual dimensions; (b) a respect for the needs
and identity of the individual; and (c) the duty of university administrators and Jesuits to those
21

employed at the university. Traub (2008) adds that cura personalis is an “attitude of respect for
the dignity of each individual” (p. 391).
Codina (1999) shares that cura personalis is not an ideal that stems from either Ignatius of
Loyola or the early writings of the Society. Rather, he refers to cura personalis as “the modern
equivalent of an attitude which certainly is very characteristic of Ignatius and the Society:
“prudence suited to places and persons, the circumstances of the persons, the diversity of the
persons and natures, etc.” (p. 127). In 1934, the ideal was set forward by Fr. Wladimir
Ledochowski, then Superior General of the Society of Jesus, who encouraged Jesuits towards a
personal care of students, or personalis alumnorum cura, which would later become a core of
Jesuit education (Codina, 1999; Geger, 2014). In the late 20th and into the 21st centuries love,
care, and a concern for the uniqueness of the individual became the emphases of cura personalis
(Geger, 2014, Kolvenbach, 1993).
Jackson (2012) views cura personalis as an essential component for cultivating human-
centered characteristics in students. Jackson defines cura personalis as a “holistic emphasis on
formation of students with attention to how their views, lifestyles, and behaviors influence their
own well-being and the well-being of others” (p. 271). A longitudinal student by Mujawar et al.
(2014) examined how cura personalis can affect the campus climate surrounding diversity. The
study revealed that one Jesuit medical school’s focus on cura personalis in its diversity efforts
led to an improvement in students’ “self-perceptions of equality and diversity at the medical
school” in a twelve-year period from 1999 to 2011 (Mujawar et al., 2014, n.p.). Guided by cura
personalis the medical school instituted campus-wide programming and initiatives focused on
the promotion of a respectful campus community, a focus on diversity and equality, and greater
awareness of diversity issues and challenges on campus. Mujawar et al. (2014) noted a positive
22

increase on students’ perceptions of equality based on diversity from 16.7% in 1999 to 23% in
2011. In other words, a care for the whole person, or cura personalis, infused into the institution
led to greater acceptance of differences and diversity. While the study focused solely on gender,
race, and sexual orientation the implications are that the focus on cura personalis may also lead
to greater positive perception of religious and spiritual diversity.
In an address at a Jesuit university, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J. (2007) stated: “As a
Jesuit institution attracts students of other religious traditions, it must explore ways to help them
too, not only in academic courses but also in support from student services and campus ministry”
(p. 4). For Kolvenbach, dialoguing with different traditions and helping all students in their
academic and spiritual development is paramount to creating a diverse climate of belonging and
inclusion at Jesuit universities.
Christian Privilege
Discussions of diversity on college campuses predominantly focus on issues related to
race (Clark, 2002; Schlosser, 2003). Studies, within the past 20 years, have focused on college
students’ decline in religious participation (Bryant et al., 2003), on the collegiate experience of
religious minorities and its effects on belief (Small & Bowman, 2011), and on creating multi-
faith spaces on, primarily public, university campuses (Allen, 2016; Craft et al., 2009; Johnson &
Laurence, 2012; Possamai & Brackenreg, 2009). Aside from promoting interfaith cooperation on
campus (Basham & Hughes, 2012), little, if any, research exists on the experience of students
from minoritized religious traditions on a religiously affiliated campus.
While Catholic Jesuit universities strive to be places of welcome and inclusion, the
institutions continue to represent a denomination within a larger faith tradition: Christianity. For
non-Christian students at these universities, the campus culture and environment are
23

representative of a tradition to which they do not belong. LaBelle and Kendall (2011) write that
it is not uncommon for such campuses to have an on-campus chapel or church, chaplains, and
opportunities for Catholic students to strengthen their faith. How can religiously affiliated
schools, specifically Catholic Jesuit schools create authentic spaces of welcome and belonging
for a religiously pluralistic community? Fairchild (2009) advocates for universities to meet
student needs in agile ways, including providing them spaces to search for existential meaning in
ways that are comfortable and inclusive. Providing students with adequate support during their
college years means meeting students where they are and recognizing a long history of religious
privilege in the United States (Fairchild, 2009). Catholic Jesuit institutions, as representative of
Christianity, share in the privilege of a dominant group.
Peggy McIntosh (1998) discusses the “invisible package of unearned assets” that she
carries daily as a white woman (p. 30). McIntosh (1998) suggests that white privilege and other
forms of privilege exist as a result of the power and dominance of one group over another.
Christian privilege is defined as the normalization of Christianity, as the dominant group, that
bestows conscious and subconscious benefits to Christians over members of minoritized
religious traditions (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Blumenfeld & Jaekel, 2012; Clark et al., 2002;
Fairchild, 2009; Joshi, 2020; Schlosser, 2003; Seifert, 2007). Due to the number of adherents,
history, and influence Christianity is characterized as the majority religious tradition in the
United States (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Joshi, 2020; Schlosser, 2003), and Catholicism is one of
its denominations (Fairchild, 2009; Schlosser, 2003). Schlosser (2003) defines a minority
religious group as “non-Christian religious groups that are numerical minorities in the United
States and have experienced oppression and/or discrimination based on group membership (e.g.,
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam)” (p. 46). While identified as Christian denominations, the
24

Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon), Seventh Day Adventists, and Unitarians are often
viewed as religious minorities and do not share in all the privileges of other Christian
denominations due to their size (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Schlosser, 2003) and perceived
stereotypes, yet still enjoy the privileges not available to other traditions (Schlosser, 2013). Clark
et al. (2002) stress,
[…] the fact remains that all Christians benefit from Christian privilege regardless of the
way they express themselves as Christians in the same way that all White people benefit
from White privilege […]. (p. 56)
Blumenfeld (2006) writes that Christian privilege is embedded into society, which normalizes
the dominance of Christianity and disempowers minority groups. The power dynamics between
Christians and religious minorities or the non-religious results in feelings of unworthiness in
non-Christians (Schlosser, 2003), organizational climate concerns (Clark et al., 2002), and a lack
of understanding of privilege (Blumenfeld & Jaekel, 2012; Schlosser, 2013).
Christian privilege normalizes Christianity as mainstream. Clark and Brimhall-Vargas
(2003) assert that Christianity “penetrates the mainstream furthest and provokes the least
controversy when it does” (p. 55). In other words, acceptance of Christianity is widespread and
rarely questioned. In a qualitative study of 27 white Christian preservice teachers, in a
multicultural education course, at a small, rural Midwestern land-grant university, researchers
found that students viewed non-Christian traditions through the lens of Christianity (Blumenfeld
& Jaekel, 2012). Using Watt’s Privilege Identity Exploration (PIE) model (2007, 2009),
Blumenfeld and Jaekel (2012) found that participants that demonstrated awareness of their
Christian privilege cited the celebration of Christian holidays in the media, less questioning of
beliefs, and “freedom from discrimination and prejudice” as benefits of being Christian (p. 138).
25

Additionally, one student cited the ease of running for political office experienced by Christians
versus non-Christians, while also acknowledging that certain Christian denominations yield
greater power (Blumenfeld & Jaekel, 2012). Participants’ perceived knowledge of Christianity as
the main religious tradition in the United States led to a belief that adherents of other religions
have an obligation to conform to living in a predominantly Christian nation. A respondent in
Blumenfeld and Jaekel’s (2012) study considered being non-Christian as “going against the
grain” while another minimized non-Christian traditions by suggesting that if Christians, visiting
or residing, in a Muslim nation must conform to the traditions of Islam, then non-Christians
should conform to living in a Christian nation. Furthermore, a participant in the same study cited
peoples’ reluctance to vote for Mormons, Muslims, or Atheists as something that people would
grow out of in the same way that people grew out of their hesitancy to vote for Catholics
(Blumenfeld & Jaekel, 2012). In other words, the participants believed that non-Christians and
non-religious persons have the responsibility to change or accept living in a society that lends
value to their traditions or beliefs in and through the dominant group. This lack of acceptance
and related expectations can leave a negative impression on the lives of religious minorities and
the non-religious.
Schlosser (2003) writes that Christian privilege leads religious minorities to feel
undervalued and leads to feelings of discrimination and prejudice. Citing Seifert (2007), Ahmadi
and Cole (2014) further assert that “[C]hristian privilege has the potential to stifle non-Christian
students’ expression of their spiritual identity” in higher education (p. 175). In what Ferber
(2012) refers to as a Christonormative environment, policies and practices serve to reinforce
Christian norms that marginalize those outside of the dominant group. Blumenfeld (2020) adds
that Christian privilege can have “very serious implications on individuals’ sense of self and on
26

their identity development, for they begin to view themselves through the lens of the dominant
group” and may internalize “attitudes of inferiority or ‘otherness” (p. 2391).
Schlosser and Sedlacek (2001) write, “there are measurable consequences of the
manifestations of Christian privilege in the public domain” (p. 52). As microcosms of society,
institutions of higher education, as well as the workplace, mirror and represent larger societal
norms and values. Colleges and universities often cater to a Christian majority in institutional
policies, such as the academic calendar, on-campus dining options, and even the curriculum
(Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Clark et al., 2002; Ferber, 2012; Schlosser, 2003; Seifert, 2007). Non-
Christians, at times, are left to negotiate conflicts that may arise between their studies or
workplace commitments and their religious practice (Schlosser & Sedlacek, 2001, 2003). This
includes, according to Schlosser and Sedlacek (2001), the need to “verify, document, and/or
otherwise prove to a position in authority—who is usually Christian—that their absences are
associated with the observance of a religious or spiritual event” (p. 52). Meanwhile, federal and
state holidays, such as Christmas, coincide with major Christian holidays (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014;
Clark et al., 2002; Seifert, 2007), while holidays associated with non-Christian traditions are
often not recognized (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014). Additionally, normalizing Christianity may lead to
misconceptions of non-Christian traditions, which can lead to negative attitudes and sentiments
against minoritized religious groups.
The events of September 11, 2001 brought Islam to the forefront and sparked anti-
Muslim sentiment nationally. Rockenbach et al. (2017) advocate for the need for leaders in
higher education to create more welcoming environments for Muslim students. In a three-year
study conducted at 52 colleges and universities, Rockenbach et al. (2017) focused on non-
Muslim attitudes towards Muslims in college. Utilizing a three-survey approach between fall
27

2011 and spring 2014, researchers obtained 13,489 responses from a random sample that
included Christian and non-Christian students at public and private institutions with 21% of
those institutions being Catholic. The study found that students from Christian backgrounds held
less appreciative attitudes towards Muslims (Rockenbach et al., 2017). Researchers attribute this
attitude to a lack of interaction with Muslims or that the “preexisting knowledge of Muslims may
be influenced or limited by religious, familial, or societal sources that perpetuate
misconceptions” (p. 496). Similarly, in a case study on diversity initiatives at the University of
Maryland Office of Human Relations Programs’ (OHRP), Clark (2003) found that conflict
between Christians and non-Christians stemmed from a lack of understanding and knowledge
about each other’s religious or spiritual traditions and a lack of awareness of Christian hegemony
present in the institution. While Christian mainstreaming can lead to comfort in Christians and
discomfort to non-Christians, the Christian privilege that it espouses is, most often, recognized
by those outside of Christianity.
Those that benefit from Christian privilege are often unaware, or resist awareness, of the
advantages of representing the majority tradition. For McIntosh (1988), white privilege grants
the power to remain oblivious to the advantages conferred or the opportunities denied to some
because of skin color. Schlosser (2003) calls discussion of Christian privilege the “sacred taboo”
because, as with white privilege, the dominant majority consciously or subconsciously longs to
ensure its privilege (McIntosh, 1988). A study of 27 white, Christian preservice teachers at a
small rural Midwestern university found that participants demonstrated resistance in
“acknowledging or critically investigating the notion of unearned Christian privilege”
(Blumenfeld & Jaekel, 2012, p. 142). Researchers found that some participants communicated a
lack of awareness while also articulating aspects of Christian privilege in stating that they were
28

unaware of what privileges they are afforded as Christians because they have never been
anything other than Christian (Blumenfeld & Jaekel, 2012). While some participants seemingly
lacked awareness, others resisted awareness. Blumenfield and Jaekel (2012) report that a number
of students rejected the idea of Christian privilege and either suggested that Christianity is an
oppressed tradition or that the benefit of Christianity is Christianity itself. The results of this
study demonstrate that Christian privilege is often rejected by the majority or turned on its head
to absolve Christians from any responsibility in recognizing its influence on other traditions.
Markowitz and Puchner (2018) conducted a qualitative study of 27 public elementary
school teachers and administrators in the United States to examine the structural ignorance of
Christian privilege. Utilizing Alcoff’s (2018) framework on structural ignorance, which
examines the ignorance of a dominant group as shaped by either a limited understanding or a
lack of motivation to understand, the researchers engaged in interviews focused on Christian
privilege and on the fairness or unfairness of Christmas celebrations at school. Markowitz and
Puchner (2018) found that the fairness of Christmas celebrations, even at schools with a high
number of non-Christians, was defined in terms of celebrating the majority. Some respondents
denied celebrating Christmas though their celebrations included depictions of Santa Claus,
wreaths, Christmas trees, and even Christmas-themed background music (Markowitz & Puchner,
2018). One teacher conveyed that allowing Christians to celebrate their traditions is fair, while
teaching about religious diversity is not necessarily fair (Markowitz & Puchner, 2018). In other
words, not allowing Christians to celebrate their traditions and holidays constitutes an unfair
practice while failing to teach about religious diversity is acceptable. A similar sentiment was
echoed by a superintendent who questioned why she would ever follow a mandate to cancel
Christmas celebrations because the minority voice was louder than the majority (Markowitz &
29

Puchner, 2018). Instead, Christmas celebrations were viewed as opportunities to build
community. However, the exclusion experienced by non-Christian students during Christmas
celebrations was often seen as the responsibility of the parents and not the educators (Markowitz
& Puchner, 2018). Schlosser (2003) writes that such attitudes demonstrate those that benefit
from Christian privilege often fail to recognize it as such because they have not faced a similar
oppression. As students attend college, they enter a period of social, psychological, and spiritual
development that informs their worldview. This can create a sense of belonging and inclusion
that creates a positive campus climate, and allows for a diversity of backgrounds, experiences,
and voices that aid student development.
Campus Climate and Student Development
Rodgers (1990) defines student development as “the ways that a student grows,
progresses, or increases [their] developmental capabilities as a result of enrollment in an
institution of higher education” (p. 27). Holmes et al. (2004) write that consciously, or
unconsciously, the college experience is a time when students begin to understand who they are
through their relationships, environments, and the expectations put upon them. Central to this
growth is the collegiate experience. According to Evans et al. (1998), positive development relies
on four environmental conditions: (a) students are appropriately challenged and supported; (b)
students are engaged in the campus community; (c) students experience a sense of belonging;
and (d) students feel validated. These conditions take place within the institutional context of a
college or university and contribute to a school’s overall campus climate.
Campus climate is defined as the perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, and institutional
actions of students and employees at a university (Peterson & Spencer, 1990; Rankin & Reason,
2008). Campus climate affects every member of the university community and contributes to
30

various aspects of student development but is perceived differently by different groups within the
campus community (Hurtado et al., 1998, 1999; Mayhew & Bryant, 2012; Paredes-Collins,
2013; Rankin & Reason, 2008). Existing research on campus climate has focused mostly on race
(Hurtado, 2005; Hurtado et al., 1998, 1999; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005), yet recent research has
begun to examine the spiritual and religious dimension of campus climate (Ahmadi & Cole,
2014; Bowman & Smedley, 2012; Cole & Ahmadi, 2010; Fosnacht & Broderick, 2018; Mayhew
& Bryant, 2012; Mayhew et al., 2014; Mayhew et al., 2016; Paredes-Collins, 2013; Riggers-
Piehl & Lehman, 2016; Rockenbach & Mayhew, 2013, 2014; Rockenbach et al., 2015;
Rockenbach et al., 2017). Non-Christian and non-religious students contribute to the diversity of
the campus community and the university contributes to their development during their time on
campus. Positive student development takes place when individuals and groups feel that they are
members of a community, which, for non-Christian and non-religious students, is reinforced by a
climate that fosters a sense of belonging and inclusion, diversity, and opportunities for religious
and spiritual development.
Sense of Belonging and Inclusion
Strayhorn (2012) defines sense of belonging as “students' perceived social support on
campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, the experience of mattering or feeling cared
about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the group (e.g. campus community) or
others on campus (e.g. faculty, peers)” (p. 3). Baumeister and Leary (1995) add that the need to
belong is a fundamental human motivation and can lead to positive effects and behavioral
consequences. Inclusion, by definition, refers to the inclusion of all individuals, especially those
“who have historically been excluded” (“inclusion”, n.d.). Tienda (2013) defines inclusion as
“organizational strategies and practices that promote meaningful social and academic interaction
31

among persons and groups who differ in their experiences, their views and their traits” (p. 467).
Taken together, students’ sense of belonging and inclusion refer to students’ feelings of
belongingness, acceptance, and value to the institution. Matus-Betancourt et al. (2018) go further
by calling educational inclusion “a right to participate and belong” (p. 1), while Tobell et al.
(2021) add that “inclusion can be understood as participation in the social structures of the
educational institution” (p. 286). This is significant for traditionally marginalized students as
they navigate new environments, socialize with peers and faculty, engage with the campus
community, and explore their individuality. A study by Vaccaro and Newman (2016) found that
factors that influence students’ sense of belonging and inclusion fall into three categories:
relationships, campus engagement, and campus environment.
Relationships
Members of minoritized groups find a sense of belonging in building relationships with
others. In a qualitative study conducted by Means and Pyne (2017), researchers found that low-
income first-generation students found comfort and belonging in their relationships with peers
and institutional support systems. The study examined the first-year experience of 10 students
from underprivileged backgrounds, including eight students of color, to determine if institutional
support increased students’ sense of belonging. Study participants described being prepared to be
“othered” by their campus community either because of their racial or economic backgrounds
(Means & Pyne, 2017). Students of color described feeling a sense of belonging within
multicultural centers or offices, while all students expressed finding a sense of belonging within
scholarship programs, identity-based programs, and through a “supportive network” of peers and
staff.
32

Vaccaro and Newman (2016), in their qualitative study on students’ meaning making of
an emerging sense of belonging, found that minoritized students found a sense of belonging in
relationships where they could be authentic. Students found comfort in relationships that went
beyond the surface and allowed them to be themselves with, in some cases, their multiple
identities and backgrounds. Vaccaro and Newman’s sample included 51 undergraduate students,
including 20 students of color and fourteen non-Christian students. The researchers note that the
types of relationships that mattered to students varied between privileged and minoritized
students, with minoritized students valuing authentic relationships while privileged students
typically valued relationships focused on “functional tasks,” such as studying and calling about
homework assignments (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016). The value placed on relationships by
minoritized students indicates a desire to build lasting and meaningful friendships and support
systems that engage in full acceptance of the individual, while also feeling included in the social
structure of the university.
In a study of 251 health and social science students in the United Kingdom, Tobbell et al.
(2021), found that students perceived a more inclusive learning environment when they were
afforded the opportunity to engage in interpersonal relationships and felt excluded when
opportunities for relationship are absent. The qualitative study, conducted at a U.K. university
that desired to become more inclusive, found that students “believe that an inclusive learning
environment helps them to engage in social exchanges and [to] make relationships” (p. 290).
Students also suggested that they believe that it is the responsibility of the university to create the
structure and opportunities for social exchange. Tobbell et al. (2021) suggest that students value
relationships as a means of access, empowerment, control, and the opportunity to contribute
meaningfully to their learning experience. Relationships as an aspect of sense of belonging and
33

inclusion can also lead to opportunities for members of the community to interact in ways that,
as Tienda (2013), writes “[challenge] preexisting stereotypes about others” (p. 471).
Opportunities to engage with different groups within the university community are provided
through campus engagement at the curricular and cocurricular levels.
Campus Engagement
Tienda (2013) posits that universities are “uniquely positioned” to foster inclusion in the
classroom and through cocurricular engagement (p. 472). Minoritized students that actively
engage with the campus community are more likely to experience a sense of belonging and
inclusion. Astin (1984) refers to engagement as involvement and defines it as “the amount of
physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p. 518).
Here, as determined by Wolf-Wendel et al. (2009) the terms engagement and involvement are
interchangeable. A student with high involvement is one who: (a) spends considerable time
studying; (b) spends time on campus; (c) is an active participant in student organizations; and (d)
interacts frequently with faculty, staff, and other students (Astin, 1984).
Astin’s (1975) initial study on student involvement found that students residing in
university residence halls and students that participate in extracurricular activities demonstrate a
higher degree of persistence and are less likely to dropout. This longitudinal study of college
dropouts aimed to discover what factors affected student persistence in college. Astin also found
that students are more likely to remain at a religiously affiliated college if their own religious
backgrounds are like that of the institution. With the growing number of non-Christian students
at Jesuit Catholic universities such a finding supports the importance of students finding a sense
of belonging and inclusion at their university. Astin attributed his findings to the ease of
belonging that students experience when they can identify with groups on campus.
34

Students that are more involved on campus experience a greater sense of belonging and
positive well-being. Bowman (2010) identified a positive relationship between student
involvement on campus and psychological well-being. A quantitative study of over 3,000
students at nineteen public and private institutions found that psychological well-being was
enhanced positively through engagement with diversity, academic challenge, and positive
interactions with peers and faculty (Bowman, 2010). A similar longitudinal study of students at
49, mostly liberal arts, institutions found that awareness of the influence of student involvement
on well-being may help students in engaging with opportunities to enhance well-being while at
the university (Kilgo et al., 2016). Researchers found that, for fourth year students, activities
such as becoming a resident advisor, participating in intramural sports, and significant
involvement in student organizations leads to a positive effect on students’ well-being (Kilgo et
al., 2016).
Students may experience a different sense of belonging based on daily experiences.
According to Walton and Cohen (2007), students may experience fluctuations in sense of
belonging, or belonging uncertainty, because of an increased awareness and sensitivity to issues
of social acceptance and belonging among individuals whose backgrounds have been negatively
characterized. In a qualitative study conducted by Gillen-O’Neel (2019), sense of belonging and
student engagement were measures at the person and daily levels. The researcher found that
among a sample of 250 first-generation and continuing-generation students, daily sense of
belonging is important to maintaining student engagement even if student sense of belonging is
typically high (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019). Students with a higher sense of belonging at the person
level, also displayed higher emotional and behavioral engagement while a higher sense of
belonging, at a daily level, also contributed to higher engagement on the same day (Gillen-
35

O’Neel, 2019). How a student connects to his or her campus is determined not only on the
opportunities available to engage but also on the overall campus environment that welcomes
students’ diversity and contributions.
Campus Environment
A diverse campus environment enhances positive student development and helps students
thrive. According to Hurtado et al. (1998) the structural diversity and the behavioral climate of
the school contribute to the campus environment. Structural diversity refers to the numerical
representation of specific groups on campus, while the behavioral climate refers to intergroup
relations as well as how welcomed and respected minority groups feel on campus (Hurtado et al.,
1998). Research on diversity in higher education has shown that racial and cultural diversity
along with positive intergroup relations yield positive educational benefits such as motivation,
intellectual development, and the development of a more pluralistic mindset (Bowman, 2010;
Chang, 1999; Chang et al., 2004; Chang et al., 2006; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2001;
Jayakumar, 2008).
A study by Pascarella et al. (2014) showed that exposure to experiences of diversity
foster cognitive growth and complexity of thought. In a longitudinal study of 949 full-time fourth
year students at 17 college and universities, researchers found that the positive effects of
exposure to diversity last throughout the four years of college or university and appear to
increase over time (Pascarella et al., 2014). Bowman et al. (2011) support these findings in an
earlier study that found that experiences of diversity encountered in the first year led to an
increase in different types of diversity experienced by the final year of college or university.
Additionally, the positive influence of these encounters may be felt long after a student leaves
the college or university. In a quantitative study of 416 graduates from a medium-sized Catholic
36

university, Bowman et al. (2011) found that the effects of diversity on campus were still
prevalent 13 years after graduation. The researcher concluded that both academic and
extracurricular experiences of diversity are “positively related to personal growth, purpose in
life, recognition of racism, and volunteering behavior” (Bowman et al., 2011, p. 737). Therefore,
being at a diverse campus environment may leave a positive long-term impression on students.
However, diverse environments that welcome different viewpoints and student contributions
help students to thrive on campus and beyond as well, while diverse environments that do not
openly welcome diversity and difference can lead to feelings of exclusion.
Several international studies point to the negative consequences of exclusion of non-
Christian students in higher education. In a study focused on internationalization and religious
inclusion in the U.K. system of higher education, Stevenson (2014) found that minoritized
religious students that were “othered” due to religious identity felt stereotyped, discriminated,
marginalized, and excluded by the institution (p. 56). The study interviewed 15 students from
Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian backgrounds. While Christian participants described feeling
stereotyped as “dull” or prudish, students from non-Christian religions reported facing obstacles
in obtaining time off for religious observances or advertising religious gatherings. Muslim
students also reported being labeled as “terrorists” and the women as “oppressed” (p. 56).
Several students in Stevenson’s (2014) study expressed that “such casual intolerance and
derogatory comments were able to thrive in a climate within which they remained unchallenged
on campus” (p. 57). Students argued that such a climate was a result of institutional failure to
“recognize the legitimacy of their religion and their cultural identity” (p. 57). As a result, some
students admitted to choosing to publicly pass as non-religious to avoid feeling isolated and
excluded.
37

An earlier study by Stevenson (2013) examined the experiences of Christian, Sikh,
Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim students at a large U.K. university with a strong commitment to
equity and inclusion and a record of attracting diverse groups of students. The study focused on
the experience of 15 students at a secular campus where the avoidance of discussion of religion
has led to feelings of silencing and marginalization among students. Stevenson (2013) found that
students were “caught in a paradoxical, and unenviable, position of being both ‘seen’ and
‘unseen’ as ‘different’” (p. 33). Non-Christian students reported feeling seen only in terms of
difference, such as the clothing or jewelry worn in the case of Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish
students. Students reported feeling isolated and excluded and facing difficulties in establishing
relationships with their white British peers. Stevenson (2013) shared how students were “critical
of the institution for not addressing overt exclusion,” being “purely tokenistic in its equality
practices,” and using the language of diversity and inclusion as “rhetoric” (p. 35). Participants
also shared feeling as if “they are surrounded by a policy of silence in relation to their religious
identity” (p.37). While some Christian participants reported that the institution does not treat any
faith tradition as legitimate, non-Christian participants, by far, expressed instances of ridicule
and intolerance that led to feelings of isolation, exclusion, and feeling undefended. Participants
expressed that the university forced religious students into invisibility and silence. Stevenson
(2013) reported that some students were driven to a place of exclusion and isolation that affected
their sense of belonging and ultimately discouraged them from continuing their studies at the
university. A similar U.K. study by Weller et al. (2011) found that non-Christian students also
felt unable to celebrate non-Christian holidays and observances while others were challenged
when wearing religious attire in medical or other healthcare settings. In the study of 3077 staff
and 3935 students in higher education, who identified as either religious or part of a belief
38

system, some students reported feeling that free speech was valued on their campuses but did not
feel at ease in openly discussing their tradition on campus. Such encounters with exclusion
influence a student’s sense of belonging and welcome.
Students from minoritized religious traditions and non-religious belief systems benefit
from diverse campus environments where they feel a sense of belonging and inclusion (Milem et
al., 2005). Religious diversity is often left out of the conversation on diversity, but like racial and
ethnic diversity religious diversity benefits the campus community and an appreciation for such
diversity helps students feel welcomed and a part of the campus community (Bowman &
Smedley, 2012; Dalton & Crosby, 2007; Sorrentino, 2010). According to Dalton and Crosby
(2007), engaging in interfaith conversation on campus can provide “a powerful way of entering
into another’s inner world and catching glimpses of what is personal or even sacred to them” (p.
3). Literature on religious diversity in higher education has mostly focused on student
involvement with their individual belief systems (Astin et al., 2011; Bowman & Small, 2010,
2012; Bryant, 2007; Small & Bowman, 2011) and not on the sense of belonging experienced by
students from diverse religious traditions and belief systems or the effects of religious plurality
on the campus community. However, studies conducted on the acceptance of particular religious
and non-religious groups have found that acceptance of minoritized traditions is enhanced within
campus environments that value diversity and diverse experiences.
Non-Christian students find acceptance in campus environments that allow for diverse
encounters between students and the campus community. Cole and Ahmadi (2010), in a study on
the Muslim student experience, found that Muslim students often pursued more diversity-related
experiences that their Jewish and Christian counterparts. These students often engaged with
extracurricular groups focused on cultural or religious diversity. Researchers found that students’
39

educational satisfaction may be linked to the types of diversity-related opportunities students
have on campus (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010). The diversity of a campus environment provides
minoritized students an opportunity to find like-minded groups of people and to interact with
others of difference races, ethnicities, and belief systems. A study by Rockenbach et al. (2017)
further supports the link between a diverse campus and positive student development. In a study
of 13,489 students at private and public institutions, including religiously affiliated institutions,
researchers sought to find how non-Muslim college students perceived Muslim students in a
post-9/11 world. The study found that, for non-Muslim students, opportunities to engage with
diversity, with Muslim students in particular, led to more favorable attitudes and challenged
previously held assumptions about Muslims in general (Rockenbach et al., 2017). The diversity
of the campus environment can lead students to view differences in a new light and to become
more accepting and open.
Bowman et al. (2016) in a study of college students’ attitudes towards atheist students,
found that informal engagement with diverse peers and worldview diversity leads to more
acceptance and appreciation of atheists on campus. In this quantitative study of over 12,550
students at a mix of public and private institutions, students were surveyed about their
worldview, which includes both religious and non-religious perspectives. The results showed
that students with a broader worldview, and who came from spiritual or secular belief systems,
showed more favorable attitudes toward atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and those
identifying as non-religious or non-spiritual (Bowman et al., 2016). Campus environments that
welcome diversity and embrace diverse perspectives contribute to students’ sense of belonging
and inclusion and aid in the growth and development of all students. Tienda (2013) offers that
while a diverse student body leads to positive benefits on campus, it is not enough to guarantee
40

inclusion. Tienda argues that inclusion “must be deliberately cultivated thought interactions that
engage the diverse life experiences” of students from varied backgrounds, including religious (p.
470). For Jesuit Catholic universities, religious and spiritual development is one additional factor
of student development that is vital to the mission of the institution and its focus on cura
personalis.
Religious and Spiritual Development
Discussions on student development in higher education have, until recently, not included
much discussion on student development around faith, religion, and spirituality (Astin, 2004;
Astin & Keen, 2006; Astin et al., 2011; Bryant, 2006; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Parks, 2000).
As research on student development has continued to grow, interest in the faith, spiritual, and
religious dimension of student development has also. Theories in this area merge both cognitive
and person-environment theories to further understand how students develop in the areas of faith,
religion, and spirituality.
Drawing on the research on human development proposed by Erikson, Kohlberg, and
Piaget, Fowler (1981, 2001) developed a seven-stage framework, starting with stage zero, for
faith development. At the core of Fowler’s model is an understanding of spirituality as necessary
to human existence and faith as a multilayered process of meaning-making (Fowler, 1981). The
stages of faith development span the timeline of birth through adulthood, and one must pass
through a stage before moving on. Faith at stage zero is known as primal or undifferentiated and
spans from 0 to 2 years of age. In this stage, faith is formed based on the relationship between
the child and parents where a sense of safety and trust is built. In the first stage, intuitive-
projective, at ages 3 to 7 ideas or understandings of God are absorbed from familial relationships
or society; and fantasy and reality overlap. In the second stage, the mythic-literal stage, children
41

from ages 6 to 12 can distinguish fantasy from reality, can more logically understand the world
around them, distinguish from right and wrong, and accept and understand the stories shared
with them as literal. Stage three, the synthetic-conventional stage, begins in early adolescence. In
this stage, faith is constructed in conformity and the individual is less inclined to question and to
challenge their belief system. In this stage, the adolescent may also begin to feel a desire for an
interpersonal relationship with God, or a higher power (Fowler & Dell, 2006).
According to Fowler (1981), as the individual moves into older adolescence and,
eventually, adulthood they either remain in stage three, the synthetic-conventional stage or
advance into one or several of the advanced stages. In stage four, faith becomes individuative-
reflective where an individual, in their twenties and beyond, begins a critical examination of their
beliefs and value systems. In this stage, the individual may also challenge old assumptions and
beliefs and grow into their own individual spirituality rather than one previously borrowed or
absorbed from another. It is in this stage where some individuals may outgrow their previous
faith, pursue a new belief system, or even leave faith altogether. This is also the stage where an
individual can grow and strengthen in faith, religious identity, and spirituality (Fowler, 1981). In
the fifth stage, faith becomes conjunctive. The individual accepts the paradoxes and mysteries of
life and becomes open to opposing views and to seeing sacred stories and symbols as more than
static or literal (Fowler, 1981). In the final stage, faith has become universalizing or enlightened
(Fowler, 1981). In this stage, the individual becomes altruistic and sees past any difference to
understand the world as one universal community. Individuals at this stage seek the common
good, fight for peace and justice, and look to change the world (Fowler, 1981). According to
Fowler (1981), the final two stages are rarely attained.
42

Within Fowler’s stages, there is no specific stage for a young adult outside of the
synthetic-conventional stage which begins at adolescence. Perceiving a gap in Fowler’s stages of
faith development, Sharon Daloz Parks (2000), using Fowler’s stages as a starting point,
developed her own stages of faith developed with a dedicated stage for young adults ages 17 to
30. According to Parks (2000) faith does not equal religion, but it is the process of finding
purpose and meaning. Parks (2000) defined faith as “the activity of seeking and discovering
meaning in the most comprehensive dimensions of our experience,” (p. 7). For Parks there are
four stages and three forms of faith development within those stages. Unlike in Fowler’s (1981)
model, an individual progresses through the stages at different ages, but can also move back and
forth between stages depending on life experiences, or not progress beyond a single stage (Parks,
2000). The four stages are: (a) adolescence or conventional; (b) young adult; (b) tested adult; and
(d) mature adult. The three forms are: forms of knowing; forms of dependence; and forms of
community.
At the adolescence or conventional stage individuals are authority-bound and their trust
and understanding of belief and events is dependent on parents and other authority figures. At the
young adult stage, individuals begin to reflect and make meaning about life and its occurrences.
Young adults move away from their authority-bound understanding of events and belief and
begin to take responsibility for their actions, beliefs, values, and faith (Parks, 2000). At this
stage, young adults also begin to explore and make meaning of their lives and their futures
(Parks, 2000). It is important to note that, according to Parks (2000), an individual may never
move out of the young adult stage. If they do, however, they encounter the tested adult stage, in
which individuals experience a greater sense of self, are more grounded in their commitments,
are more inter-dependent, and see themselves as the authority figures. At the final stage, that of
43

the mature adult, the individual embraces the complexity of life, understands themselves as an
authority in relation to other authorities, and embraces interdependence with the recognition that
true community is beyond groups of like-minded people. For Parks (2000), this final stage is
rarely achieved.
Both Fowler (1986) and Parks (2000) paved the way for a deeper look at human faith
development. While Fowler (1986) does not include a stage dedicated to young adults, his
synthetic-conventional stage indicates that from adolescence to adulthood there is a process of
questioning authority and wrestling with the meaning of life, which is also present in Parks’
(2000) Young Adult stage. With both these theories as a starting point, Astin et al. (2010, 2011)
engaged in a ground-breaking a seven-year longitudinal study, beginning in 2003, that examined
students’ religious and spiritual development. The researchers sought to understand how students
change in college and how college influences their spiritual and religious development (Astin, et
al., 2010, 2011). In the study, spirituality is defined as “[h]ow students make meaning of their
education and their lives, how they develop a sense of purpose, the value and belief dilemmas
they experience, as well as the role of religion, the sacred, and the mystical in their lives” (Astin
et al., 2011, p. 40). It defined religiousness as adherence to a particular faith-based belief system.
In a study of 14,527 students at 136 public and private colleges and universities
nationwide, researchers administered a survey and engaged in focus groups and personal
interviews with students. They also surveyed and interviewed faculty members. Astin et al
(2010, 2011) focused on three questions: What college experiences are most likely to promote
students’ spiritual development? How does growth in spiritual qualities such as equanimity, ethic
of caring, and ecumenical worldview affect traditional outcomes, such as academic achievement,
leadership skills, and satisfaction with college? If colleges and universities emphasized activities
44

and practices that promote spiritual development how would traditional outcomes such as
academic performance and leadership development be affected? Using twelve measures of
religiousness and spirituality, Astin et al. (2010, 2011) sought to understand how students
developed in areas such as equanimity, ethic of caring, spiritual quest, charitable involvement,
ecumenical worldview, religious engagement, religious commitment, religious skepticism,
religious conservatism, and religious struggle.
Much like the earlier discussion on student development and diversity, spiritual and
religious diversity is influenced by exposure to diversity of spiritual and religious traditions and
cultures. The study found that exposure to diversity of people, cultures, and ideas along with
opportunities to engage in diverse activities helps students to embrace multiple perspectives and
a more ecumenical worldview (Astin et al., 2010, 2011). Students also demonstrated a growth in
an ethic of caring and ecumenical worldview, which showed an increase in positive racial and
cultural interactions. These results show that exposure to diversity increases religious and
spiritual development as well as an openness to new ideas and cultures.
The study also showed that colleges and universities that provide opportunities for inner
work and spiritual engagement help students to develop in religiousness and spirituality. Astin et
al. (2010, 2011) found that while religious engagement lessens, spirituality increases on
campuses that provide opportunities for students to self-reflect, meditate, and engage in
contemplation. Likewise, campuses that provide students with opportunities to develop
leadership skills, engage in service work, and help others in the community, have positive effects
on a students’ well-being and college experience (Astin et al., 2011). Furthermore, the
researchers found a positive correlation between growth in equanimity and an increase in
45

psychological well-being, leadership skills, academic success, overall satisfaction, and a sense of
belonging in college.
The study by Astin et al. (2011) became the first national study of its kind. Its findings
are helpful in providing information on the positive influence of religious and spiritual
development. As Jesuit Catholic colleges and universities continue to foster a Catholic identity
within religiously diverse campuses, understanding what can aid in greater spiritual and religious
development for students, regardless of tradition or belief system becomes necessary and
influences a student’s sense of belonging and inclusion.
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
The aim of this study is to examine the sense of belonging and inclusion of non-Christian
students at Jesuit Catholic universities. Student experience does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, a
student’s experience on-campus is determined by internal and external factors that influence both
the life of the student and the climate of the university. In other words, both the student and the
university are affected by the world with which they interact. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986)
ecological systems theory and the Enacting Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) theory
proposed by Hurtado et al. (1998, 1999) serve as the theoretical frameworks and inform the
conceptual framework for this study.
Bronfenbrenner Ecological Theory of Development Model
Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed that human development takes place within the
interactions between the person and their environment and the ways in which the individual
“perceives and deals with [their] environment” (p. 1). His ecological systems model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005) serves as a theoretical framework for this study. The model
consists of five nested structures that create the ecological environment which the developing
46

person inhabits. These five nested structures (Figure 1) are known as the micro-, meso-, exo-,
macro-, and chronosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986, 2005).

Figure 1
Ecological Systems Theory

Note. Adapted from “Ecological systems theory,” by A. Ettekal & J. Mahoney, 2017. In K.
Peppler (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning, 1, p. 240
(https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781483385198.n94). Copyright 2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
47

The microsystem, according to Bronfenbrenner (1979) is the setting in closest proximity
to the person where one engages in personal encounters. For students, this includes their family,
peers, cultural values and beliefs, religious affiliation, and workplace. The microsystem includes
not only the encounter of the person with their environment, but also the perception of these
encounters (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The perception of the university’s campus climate is part of
the microsystem as it encompasses students’ most proximal encounters. Individual encounters
and perception of campus climate are the forces that can shape both behavior and development in
the student during their time at the university. These microsystems, however proximal, are
influenced by other microsystems that form a larger system of microsystems known as the
mesosystem.
For Bronfenbrenner (1979), the mesosystem is “formed or extended whenever the
developing person moves into a new setting” (p. 25). The individual is then influenced by the
various interconnections, each with their own microsystem, to which he or she is exposed. For
students, this includes interpersonal connections with others, such as family members, friends,
instructors, religious affiliation, and neighborhood. The mesosystem has an indirect influence on
the student, but still contributes to their ecological environment.
Extending past the mesosystem is the exosystem. Bronfenbrenner (1979) stated that this
system does not include the individual as an active participant. Renn (2003) posits that, for
students, the exosystem is composed of factors such as a university’s curricular decisions, federal
and university-level financial aid policies, decisions made in a parent’s personal life or
workplace, decisions made by college administrators, or even decisions made at a partner’s
workplace. While students are not active participants in the exosystem, they can be affected by
what occurs therein. For students from minoritized religious traditions or non-religious belief
48

systems, the exosystem can include policies affecting classroom attendance during holidays,
exam policies, decisions affecting gathering spaces on campus, or even the availability of dining
options that meet religious dietary needs or restrictions.
Beyond the exosystem lies the macrosystem which refers to the overall cultural context to
which the individual belongs. This structure includes ideologies, belief systems, cultural values,
ethnic and religious groups, and political and economic systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For
non-Christian students at a Jesuit Catholic university this can include national sentiment,
historical and current events, interreligious dialogue, religious literacy, and the socio-political
state of the world.
In 1986, Bronfenbrenner proposed that environmental changes over time influence an
individual’s development. This structure, known as the chronosystem, examines changes in the
life of the individual over a lifespan. Bronfenbrenner (1986) focused on two types of transition:
normative and nonnormative. Normative transitions are expected changes that occur in the life of
an individual, such as puberty, entering new school environments, transitioning to adulthood, and
getting a job. Non-normative transitions are unexpected changes, such as death, illness, and new
developments in the family. Renn (2003) writes that, for college students, “the chronosystem
takes into account the cumulative effects of development before college, the course of events
during college, and the larger effects of sociohistorical influences on identity and development”
(p. 390). Therefore, non-Christian students’ development at a Jesuit Catholic university may be
influenced by past experiences beyond the university as well as by social and historical events
that may influence not only the development of the student but also the institutional development
of the university.
49

Enacting Diverse Learning Environments Model (DLE)
While Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) theory explores individual development in the
context of ecological environments, Hurtado et al. (1998, 1999) developed a framework to
understand the dimensions of campus climate. Originally conceived as a model for
understanding campus climate in regard to racial and ethnic diversity, the framework is
applicable to examining the elements that influence the climate for students from non-religious
or minoritized religious traditions.
The DLE model examines the interaction of external and internal factors that contribute
to the ethnic and racial climate of the university. Hurtado et al. (1998, 1999) divide the external
climate into two domains: (a) policy, programs, and initiatives; and (b) the influence of
sociohistorical forces. When applied to the Jesuit Catholic university, the first domain is
represented by the Roman Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus. The second domain
includes events or issues in the larger society that influence how people view religious and non-
religious belief systems (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Hurtado et al., 1998). For example, as Ahmadi
and Cole (2014) offer, the sociohistorical events of September 11, 2001 influenced how people
view Muslims and the Islamic tradition.
The institutional context, or internal climate, of the DLE model is comprised of four
dimensions (see Figure 2): (a) institutional historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion; (b)
structural diversity; (c) psychological climate of perceptions and attitudes between groups; and
(d) behavioral climate (Hurtado et al., 1998, 1999).

50

Figure 2

Enacting Diverse Learning Environments Model

Note. From “Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic
diversity in higher education,” S. Hurtado, J. Milem, A. Clayton-Pedersen, & W. Allen, 1999,
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(8), p. 18 (https://doi.org/10.13016/EHAZ-A6JT).
Copyright 1999 by The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and
Human Development.

The first dimension of an institution’s historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion was
originally crafted to address racial and ethnic diversity. Ahmadi and Cole (2014) assert that in
regard to religious diversity “institutional type and religious affiliation are likely to impact the
embedded nature in which cultural values and traditions are recognized or become implicit as the
normative backdrop for which institutional practices are derived and maintained with regard to
admissions practices, university holidays, and the like” (p. 179). Jesuit Catholic universities are
51

founded on the principles of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus, thereby
institutionally operating from a place of Christian privilege. The influence of Catholicism and the
Jesuit order permeates through the mission, vision, values, curriculum, and academic calendar of
Jesuit Catholic universities. Therefore, the historical legacy of the school is grounded in
Christianity and its history and practice of inclusion and exclusion predicated on Church
development, namely post-conciliar documents, and decrees from the Society of Jesus.
Structural diversity, according to Hurtado et al. (1998) refers to the number of students
represented from various racial and ethnic groups. For this study, structural diversity is
considered the numerical representation of students from religious and belief systems outside of
Christianity. It is important to note that students may experience various intersectionalities that
contribute to an institution’s diversity. This may include race, ethnicity, gender identity,
disability status, religion, etc. While structural diversity focuses on representation within the
institution, the third dimension of DLE, the psychological dimension, focuses on the individual’s
perceptions of group relations, the institutional response to diversity, perceptions of
discrimination or conflict, and attitudes towards different groups (Hurtado et al., 1998). Such
perceptions are largely determined by positionality within the institution (Hurtado et al.,1998).
The perception of campus climate, for example, is different between faculty, staff,
administrators, and students because of their particular position and power on campus.
The fourth dimension, the behavioral dimension, consists of (a) social interaction; and (b)
interactions between groups, and the nature of intergroup relations on campus (Hurtado et al.,
1998). Ahmadi and Cole (2014) add that the when, whom, and how in interactions matters to the
way climate is perceived. For non-Christian students, the behavioral climate includes interactions
with peer groups as well as the ability to openly engage in activities related to their religion or
52

belief system. For example, the treatment of students that outwardly express their tradition in
what they wear (Sikh student in a turban, Muslim or Jewish students wearing a head covering,
etc.). How students are treated and how they continue to modify their behavior as a result forms
the behavioral climate.
Milem et al. (2005) add a fifth dimension to the DLE model, which is beneficial to
examining the climate of a religiously affiliated university. This dimension represents the ways
in which institutional aspects in organization and structure benefit groups on campus (Milem et
al., 2005). Expanding on the dimension of legacy of inclusion from the DLE model, Milem et al.
(2005) examine how the organizational and structural dimension is reflected in the curriculum,
decision-making, admissions, and the daily administration of campus. In the context of religious
minorities on campus, this dimension includes peer groups and student organizations as well as
organizations based on religious or spiritual development. For Catholic Jesuit universities this
dimension includes campus ministry (LaBelle & Kendall, 2011), and interfaith partner
organizations and communities (Hillel, Muslim Student organizations, etc.), or groups supportive
of ethnic and spiritual intersectionalities (Danza Azteca Indigenous student groups, etc.).
Conceptual Framework for Current Study
The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in the ecological systems theory
and the DLE model to explore the different components that contribute to a student’s sense of
belonging and inclusion at a Jesuit Catholic university, particularly the sense of belonging and
inclusion of non-Christian students.
As students enter the academic landscape of a college or university, they bring with them
their past experiences and sense of self. Their experience enters a reciprocal relationship with the
campus which has its own environment, history, and structures that contribute to the experience
53

that it provides to the student. Both the openness of the campus climate to the student and the
student’s engagement with the campus community contribute to the overall sense of belonging
and inclusion experienced by the student (See Figure 3).

Figure 3
Conceptual Framework

54

Summary
Student sense of belonging and inclusion is important to student success in higher
education. As Jesuit Catholic colleges and universities continue to see an increase in non-
Christian students, it is necessary to understand the ways in which the campus community is a
place that either supports or hinders students’ development and success. The goal of this
literature review was to examine three contributing factors to student sense of belonging at Jesuit
Catholic colleges and universities: (a) Jesuit Catholic higher education; (b) Christian privilege;
and (c) campus climate and student development. The reviewed literature suggests that aspects of
the history of Jesuit Catholic institutions combined with Christian privilege may influence
student perception of campus climate. Furthermore, campus climate is a contributor to elements
that contribute to student development, which, in turn, influences students’ sense of belonging
and inclusion. These factors include relationships, campus engagement, diversity, campus
environment, and religious and spiritual development. Current research supports that the
diversity that students contribute to campus also helps boost sense of belonging and inclusion in
a reciprocal fashion where the student benefits the campus community, and a diverse campus
community benefits the student. While little research is available on the experience of students
from minoritized religious traditions or belief systems, research on ethnic and cultural diversity
applies to a substantive understanding of the importance of sense of belonging and inclusion for
diverse communities.

55

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study sought to understand the sense of belonging and inclusion among students
from minoritized religious traditions and non-religious traditions at a Jesuit Catholic university.
This study utilized Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979, 2005) and the
Enacting Diverse Learning Environments Theory [DLE] from Hurtado et al. (1998) with a
qualitative design, utilizing individual interviews. To better understand the experience of
students, this study focused on the influence of Christian Privilege and overall campus climate
on non-Christian students.
Included in this chapter is a detailed description of the research methodology that guided
the study. This chapter further outlines the research approach, data sources, ethical
considerations, and limitations and delimitations.
Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following questions:
1. How is Christian privilege perceived by non-Christian students?
2. What role does Christian privilege play in the lives of non-Christian and non-
religiously affiliated students at Jesuit Catholic universities?
3. To what extent does Christian privilege shape the sense of welcome and belonging of
non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students?
4. What challenges do non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students face in
finding opportunities to exercise their beliefs on-campus?
5. What is the school doing to create various religious and non-religious identities and
the space and support for such expression?
56

Methodological Approach
This study utilized a qualitative approach to understand the experience of non-Christian
students within a Jesuit Catholic university. Qualitative research seeks to “[understand] the
meaning that people have constructed; that is, how people make sense of their world and the
experiences they have in the world” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 15). Creswell and Creswell
(2018) further add that qualitative research explores the meaning and understanding that people
assign to social or human problems. Qualitative methods were used in this study to understand
the lived experience of non-Christian students at a Jesuit Catholic university. Hearing from
students directly informed the study with firsthand accounts of how Christian privilege on
campus is experienced by students, how the campus environment provides opportunities for
student growth and development, how the students can engage with their environment, and how
students experience a sense of belonging and inclusion. A phenomenological approach informed
this study to explore and understand the experience of students on campus. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) define phenomenology as a research approach concerned with experience and
interpretation. Religion, spirituality, and belief are deeply held within a person’s consciousness;
therefore, a phenomenological approach was appropriate for examining students’ underlying
experiences. Phenomenology is appropriate for examining intense human experiences (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016) and shared experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), such as sense of
belonging, which is the innate human need to be accepted and valued as a member of a group
(Vacarro & Newman, 2016). For this study, the interviews explored students’ spirituality and
religiousness and the influence of Christian privilege on students’ sense of belonging and
inclusion at a Jesuit Catholic university.

57

Population of Focus
The population for this study consisted of undergraduate students, in their second through
final year, at West Coast Jesuit University. This decision was made as a result of the global
pandemic that necessitated a shift to online learning during academic year 2020-2021. As a
result, first-year students could not adequately speak to an in-person on-campus experience. The
goal was to conduct individual interviews with between 15 and 20 participants.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) write that purposeful sampling focuses on issues central to
the purpose of inquiry. Maxwell (2013) adds that purposeful sampling allows the researcher to
obtain information that is necessary and relevant to a study’s questions and goals. Using
purposeful sampling, recruitment for this study focused on students that are either non-Christian
or not affiliated (“nones”) with any religious tradition. Students were recruited through the
researcher’s relationship with interfaith groups on campus, through an announcement in the
campus ministry newsletter, through outreach to different academic and student life departments
on campus, through student government, through interfaith partners, and in conjunction with
virtual campus ministry events. By outreaching to communities of non-Christian and non-
religiously affiliated students, the researcher maintained the integrity of the study by recruiting
students that felt comfortable with sharing their experiences and participating in the study.
Additionally, working with interfaith campus partners was a matter of transparency with
members of the campus community and continued dialogue between the campus ministry office
and non-Christian affiliated ministries. Study participants were made aware of the researcher’s
background, the researcher’s work within campus ministry, and the researcher’s desire to
understand non-Christian student experiences on campus.
58

The goal was to conduct individual interviews with between 15 and 20 participants. In
total, 21 students responded. Of the participants, 16 students identified as non-Christian, four
identified as Catholic or non-Catholic Christian, and one student identified as a graduate student.
Due to the parameters of this study, the responses from the graduate student were not utilized for
this study. The interviews with Catholic and non-Catholic Christian identified students are
included as a means of comparison.
Data Collection and Interview Protocol
Individual interviews were used for data collection. This method provided the researcher
with qualitative data that offered insight into the student experience. This section provides an
overview of the approach.
Individual Student Interviews
Personal interviews allowed the researcher to gather the perspective of the individual.
Interviews are helpful in gathering data that cannot be observed (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, sense of belonging and inclusion could not be easily
observed, but participants had the opportunity to convey their feelings, experiences, and
perceptions. Interviews provided an understanding of participants’ experience within the context
of the university and provided the necessary background on internal and external forces that
shape students’ life.
Data Collection Procedures
Individual student interviews took place with 21 participants. Using purposeful sampling,
participants for individual interviews were selected from students that expressed interest in
participating as a result of outreach. Due to the primary researcher’s conflict of interest as
interim director of campus ministry and a member of the university leadership team, a co-
59

investigator managed data collection and interfaced with participants. The primary researcher did
not knowingly have direct contact with study participants at any point during the study.
The co-investigator selected participants according to specific criteria that met the needs of
the study. These criteria were:
• Must be non-Catholic/non-Christian identified
• Must be a practicing follower of a religious/spiritual tradition, belief system, or actively
identify as “none,” atheist, agnostic, indifferent, etc.
• A student in their second through final undergraduate year
• Must be a full-time student with any level of academic achievement
Interested students filled out an online interest form, created on Qualtrics, that was included on
the recruitment documentation that was distributed through the University campus ministry
newsletter, campus partners, academic departments, and affiliated interfaith partners. The co-
investigator contacted interested students to share the study’s informational sheet and to schedule
interviews.
Using a semistructured interview approach, the researcher used an interview protocol
(Appendix A) of 14 questions and probes with room for follow-up questions and questions that
naturally emerged during the interview process (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The co-
investigator conducted each one-hour interview virtually. Due to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, the co-investigator utilized Zoom, an online conferencing tool. With participant
permission, interviews were audio and video recorded using Zoom’s internal recording features.
The co-investigator made sure to leave out any personally identifiable information that would
expose the identity of the student and sent an audio-only file to the primary researcher.
Individual interviews were transcribed using an online transcription service, Temi.com. All audio
60

files were saved in an encrypted folder on an external hard drive as well as in a master folder on
Google Drive labeled “Individual Interviews” and then organized by individual subfolders for
each participant. All audio and video files were destroyed, by the co-investigator, as soon as the
researcher had transcribed each audio file. The co-investigator kept track of each student, their
study pseudonym, and their contact information. The information was destroyed after all
participants received their gift card and at the publication of this dissertation.
Data Analysis
Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggest that qualitative analysis occur simultaneously with
other parts of the study. Analysis of the gathered data began during the data collection process.
After each individual interview, the researcher examined the transcripts, wrote memos (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and began identifying emerging
themes that assisted in the creation of the final chapters of this dissertation. Creswell (2013)
suggests grouping data into themes, between five and seven, to make the data more manageable.
For this study, data was grouped into overall themes that emerged from the individual interviews.
Themes were generated through a coding process. Coding assists in organizing the data
into separate categories based on the data gathered from participants. Transcripts from focus
groups and individual interviews were coded for emergent categories utilizing Delve, a cloud-
based computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software tool specifically tailored to qualitative
analysis. Codes were reviewed, after the initial process, to avoid redundancy or overlap
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Merriam & Tisdell (2016) and Creswell (2013) suggest working
with a manageable number of categories that can be easily grouped into overall themes. The goal
of the coding process is to yield no more than 30 categories that are then reduced to a maximum
of five themes linked to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
61

After the coding process, the researcher analyzed the data utilizing the Bronfenbrenner
(1979, 2005) and Hurtado et al. (1998) frameworks to understand the perspectives and
experiences of study participants. Examining the student experience through the Bronfenbrenner
and Hurtado et al. frameworks assisted the researcher in understanding how the institution
provides opportunities to foster the development of sense of belonging in students from non-
Christian religious traditions or non-religious belief systems.
Ethical Considerations
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
For this study, the researcher applied to conduct research through the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) process at both universities, University of Southern California and West
Coast Jesuit University, as the study conducted research with human subjects. Due to the
researcher’s role as Interim Director of the campus ministry office at the participating institution,
a co-investigator was recruited to conduct all personal interviews for this study as a matter of
conflict of interest. The co-investigator was CITI-certified and approved by the University of
Southern California and West Coast Jesuit University’s Institutional Review Boards.
The co-investigator provided each participant with an in-depth overview of the study and
its research methods. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and they received
notification through information sheet and were notified that they could withdraw their consent
and end their participation in the study at any time. The co-investigator obtained permission to
audio and video record and to take notes during the interviews, if necessary. Participants
received a pseudonym to maintain confidentiality and all recordings, notes, transcripts,
communication between the co-investigator and participants, and memos were stored
electronically and only accessible by the researcher on encrypted files on an external hard drive
62

and on Google Drive. To prevent the possibility of coercion, participants did not receive
compensation until the conclusion of the study and its publication. After interviews took place,
participants received an email acknowledging their participation and their time. The email was
sent from the primary researcher to the co-investigator to maintain participant anonymity. Each
$15 gift card to a coffee shop near campus, or in their hometown, was sent by the primary
researcher immediately after the publication of this study. Participants have access to the
finalized study and will receive any related communications should the university plan to move
forward in addressing the student experience or if the study is expanded or published as part of
AJCU’s or WCJU’s campus ministry initiatives.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Maxwell (2013) defines validity as “the correctness or credibility of a description,
conclusion, explanation, interpretations or other sort of account” (p. 122). Creswell and Creswell
(2018) refer to validity as the accuracy of the findings of a study. Maxwell (2013) writes that one
threat to validity is researcher bias in potentially accepting only data that fits the researcher’s
preconceptions or data that stands out. Reliability is defined as the consistency and replicability
of a study (Maxwell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To enhance validity and reliability, the
primary researcher used the following strategies.
Maximum Variation Sampling
The primary researcher utilized maximum variation sampling to incorporate students
from various traditions in the sample as the experiences of students from different traditions
vary. Maximum variation sampling looks for variation or diversity in a sample to allow for a
greater range of application (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To understand the experiences of non-
Christian students, the researcher interviewed students that represent various religious traditions
63

or non-religious traditions to understand the experience of more than one represented group on
campus.
Triangulation
Triangulation refers to the collection of information from various sources of data to
confirm findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) or emerging themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
For this study, faculty, staff, and administrators served as additional sources of data to provide a
better understanding of the campus community and opportunities for student engagement.
Additionally, the researcher examined findings from the university’s most recent campus climate
survey to enhance the understanding of overall student perception of the university, student sense
of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students, and perception of institutional support.
Respondent Validation
Respondent validation, also known as member-checking, is a means of obtaining
participant feedback about data, interpretations, and conclusions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Houghton et al. (2013) include allowing participants
to check transcripts for accuracy, but do not suggest member-checking post-analysis. For this
study, participants received transcripts of their individual interviews to review for accuracy. Due
to the personal nature of the subject matter, participants received a preliminary analysis of their
contribution. While the interpretation was that of the researcher, Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
stress that participants “should be able to recognize their experience in [the] interpretation or
suggest some fine-tuning to better capture their perspectives” (p. 246). As the researcher
represents the majority religious tradition on campus and does not have practitioner knowledge
of other traditions, respondent validation was necessary to ensure the accuracy of content.
Additionally, different internet connection speeds and Zoom connectivity occasionally resulted
64

in inaudible sections of the interview. Respondent validation helped to ensure that participants’
thoughts were adequately captured.
Rich Description
Validity and reliability are enhanced if a study is transferable. Transferability refers to the
extent that findings from one study can be applied, or transferred, to another study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). One way to heighten transferability is to provide detailed, or rich, descriptions of
the setting and findings of a study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Houghton et al., 2013; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). This study will include detailed descriptions of the research process, the
setting, and the participants. Additionally, participant interviews will be quoted to provide
evidence for the interpretation and findings.
Positionality of the Researcher
A key characteristic of qualitative research is the role of the researcher as the principal
means of data collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a human instrument, the
researcher may bring biases to the study, which it is important to acknowledge. The researcher
used a postmodernist paradigm of inquiry to this study. Postmodernism “emphasizes the role of
language and of power relations, seeking to question accepted ways of thinking and give voice to
alternative marginalised views” (Saunders et al., 2019, pg. 149). Focused on religious minorities
and religiously unaffiliated students at a Jesuit Catholic University, this study examined
marginalized non-Christian and non-affiliated communities amid Christian privilege on campus.
As a practicing Catholic, the interim director of the campus ministry office, and as a member of
the leadership team at the participating university, the researcher acknowledges potential bias as
a member of the privileged group on campus. Therefore, the researcher approached this study
from a subjective axiology with research that is value-bound as a result to her close relationship
65

to both the institution and Catholicism. The researcher, however, is also an ethnic minority
whose interest is in providing opportunities and platforms for minority voices to be considered,
heard, and uplifted. The questions that formed this study are ones framed during the researcher’s
time working in ministry and Catholic education. The researcher hopes that this study will help
Jesuit Catholic universities and their campus ministry offices respond to the needs of non-
Christian students in ways that are proactive and authentic.

66

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand the sense of belonging and inclusion, and the
influence of Christian privilege on non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities. The
study centered on the experience of non-Christian undergraduate students in their second through
final year at WJCU. Recent data from HERI (2019) indicated that 23.9% of first-year
undergraduate students at Catholic colleges and universities identify as non-Christian or non-
religious. A complete study would include all 28 member schools of the AJCU; however, the
researcher conducted this study at a single member institution where the population of non-
Christian or non-religious students is the highest, at nearly 70%, among Jesuit colleges and
universities. This study explores the following questions:
1. How is Christian privilege perceived by non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated
students?
2. What role does Christian privilege play in the lives of non-Christian and non-
religiously affiliated students at Jesuit Catholic universities?
3. To what extent does Christian privilege shape the sense of belonging and inclusion of
non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students?
4. What challenges do non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students face in
finding opportunities to exercise their beliefs on-campus?
5. How are schools helping students develop various religious and non-religious
identities and the space and support for such expression?
Due to the global pandemic during academic year 2020-2021, a co-investigator
conducted all interviews over Zoom. Interviews ranged in length from 30 to 90 minutes utilizing
a semistructured interview protocol. Prior to data collection and analysis, the principal researcher
67

identified early themes and created a codebook in alignment with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
Systems Theory, Hurtado et al.’s Diverse Learning Environments Theory, and the research
presented in the review of literature.
This chapter provides a discussion of the study’s participants, including a profile of each
participant and a review of the criteria used to select participants for the study. Finally, there is a
discussion of emergent themes in relation to the research questions that framed this study.
Study Participants
Study participants were 20 undergraduate students in their second through final year at
WJCU. Sixteen students identified as non-Christian, and four students identified as either
Catholic or non-Catholic Christian. These four students were included in the study as a means of
comparison and to understand outsiders’ perceptions of how non-Christian students may
experience sense of belonging and inclusion on campus. To protect participants’ identities, the
co-investigator asked students to self-choose a pseudonym. In cases where students did not
submit a pseudonym by the set deadline, they were assigned one. The principal researcher did
not knowingly have contact with study participants during this study. Participants were selected
after filling out an interest form that was linked on digital flyers and emailed through different
departments and student groups on campus, through a link available on the campus ministry
newsletter, and through the online publications of interfaith partners. Participants represented
several belief systems on campus and were selected based on the following criteria:
• Must be non-Catholic/non-Christian identified
• Must be a practicing follower of a religious/spiritual tradition, belief system, or actively
identify as “none,” atheist, agnostic, indifferent, etc.
• A student in their second through final undergraduate year
68

• Must be a full-time student with any level of academic achievement
A total of 21 students indicated interest in participating in the study. One student was not
included due to their graduate student status. The four Catholic and non-Catholic Christian
identified students expressed interest in contributing to the study after learning about the study
from participating students.
Three non-student members of the WCJU community were also interviewed to better
understand institutional policies surrounding religious inclusion on campus. These community
members included one faculty member that works closely with Muslim students, one
administrator, and one staff member from the campus ministry office. During this study, both the
administrator and the staff member departed WCJU.
Non-Christian Participants

Sixteen students identified as either non-Christian and having another tradition or as non-
Christian and non-religious. Table 1 provides an overview of non-Christian and non-religious
study participants. Profiles of each student follow.

69

Table 1
Non-Christian and Non-religious Students
Student names and
pronouns
Year Major Religious/spiritual tradition
Tracee (she/her) 4th Psychology Buddhist
Chris (he/him) 3rd Computer science Exploring/Zen Buddhist
Mia (she/her) 4th International relations and politics Jewish
Natalie (she/her) 4th Entrepreneurship and innovation Spiritual; none
Violet (she/her) 3rd Critical diversity studies Agnostic; exploring
Judaism
Alex (they/them) 4th Theology and religious studies Jewish Reform
Kara (she/her) 4th Psychology Spiritual
Ariel (they/them) 4th Business administration Jewish
Nevan (he/him) 4th Accounting Muslim
Amy (she/her) 3rd Sociology Jewish
Erina (she/her) 2nd Biology Muslim
Oliver (he/him) 4th International studies Spiritual
Amir (he/him) 3rd Nursing Progressive Muslim
Jaylyn (she/her) 3rd Chemistry None; searching
Emily (she/her) 3rd Sociology; Jewish studies and
social justice minor
Jewish Reform
Marina (she/her) 4th International studies; Middle
Eastern studies minor
Atheist; spiritual;
questioning

Tracee
A psychology major in her fourth year, Tracee grew up practicing Buddhism alongside
her parents who are still practicing Buddhists. While she continues to hold on to many Buddhist
beliefs along with the lessons and values that she learned from her family, she described herself
70

as someone that was still searching for her own belief system, religion, or spirituality. She called
herself a “Buddhist slash kind of more spiritual now as I’m growing up.” Tracee shared that her
connection to Buddhism is tied to its values and beliefs, such as reincarnation and karma.
She decided to attend WCJU because of how its values aligned with her own. She shared
the following:
I really liked that WCJU was a Jesuit school despite me not being Christian. A lot of the
values that were posted on the website and things that were shared, I felt like I could
align myself with those similar values and those other similar beliefs that I grew up with,
with family and with Buddhist beliefs. So, I felt like despite not being Christian I would
still be able to fit in given the alignment in beliefs and values.
Tracee’s decision to attend WCJU was strongly influenced by shared values and beliefs, which
led her to enroll in the university’s Jesuit Scholar Institute, a great books academic program and
residential living-learning community with a focus on the study of western civilization and
Catholicism. Tracee credited the program with helping her find her community and sense of
belonging at WCJU, even though she is not Catholic.
Chris
A third-year computer science major, Chris did not practice a specific religious tradition,
but did practice meditation and was exploring Zen Buddhism and “elements of Hinduism.” For
Chris, spirituality was more valuable as he felt that it provided a more “freeform connection to
something larger than me.” His decision to attend WCJU was related specifically to the
university’s Jesuit Catholic identity as he was “drawn to a learning environment where religion
wasn’t put to the side and was in some degree intentionally integrated into the educational
program.” Chris, prior to the interview, found himself exploring his beliefs and sense of
71

spirituality after being connected to “very dogmatic and devout Catholic family members.”
Though desiring an environment that integrated religion into its curriculum, Chris was
apprehensive about attending WCJU fearing that it would be a very strict or dogmatic
environment. Instead, Chris now felt that he found a “thoughtful, open, considerate, and, to some
degree, inclusive” campus community.
Particularly helpful to Chris’ experience of sense of belonging, inclusion, and spiritual
development was a course focused on the LGBTQIA+ community and religion. The course was
a primary way that Chris experienced a strong sense of community and an opportunity to engage
with other students that were also exploring their faith and spiritual development.
Mia
Mia, an international relations and politics major in her fourth year at WCJU, grew up in
a multifaith household that she described as more secular than religious with a Greek Orthodox
mother and a Jewish father. Mia shared that faith and spirituality were not important to her nor
her family while growing up, but that she became more religious and more desiring of exploring
her Jewish faith while at WCJU. She admitted that she knew very little about Jesuits or Jesuit
education prior to attending WCJU, but she was drawn to the university’s “deep commitment to
social justice and service.”
Mia shared that she was active in the university’s Jewish student organizations, including
Hillel. In her first year, she wanted to become involved with Jewish organizations on campus and
since then became part of Hillel’s student leadership team. As a member of the student
leadership team, she actively worked alongside other students to create a supportive and positive
community for Jewish students on-campus. She credited the Hillel organization with connecting
72

her to a Jewish mentor and “helping to establish a sense of welcoming and belonging on campus
for Jewish students at all levels of the faith journey.”
Natalie
Natalie, a fourth-year entrepreneurship and innovation major, was born and raised in
France but attended secondary school in the United States. Her decision to attend WCJU was
based solely on receiving free tuition after spending two years at the local community college.
She expressed that, initially, she felt as if WCJU was going to be a religiously conservative
school. In her experience of educational institutions in France, students dressed properly, and
religious institutions were conservative, in general. She stated,
It was funny to me to see people at a Jesuit school dressing however they wanted, you
know, that is such a sacred place to me. One of the assumptions in my head, maybe, was
walking in the halls and you see all this religious stuff and thinking like how conservative
is it going to be? But no.
Natalie believed that the Catholic symbolism on campus signaled a strict and conservative
Catholic environment. She felt some hesitation in attending WCJU, not because of the Catholic
identity but because of the potential conservatism.
Natalie identified as a “none” having no religious tradition and no upbringing within a
spiritual or religious tradition but having a sense of spirituality. She said she does not deny that
“there is something” and is not against religion, but she is not a part of nor desires to be part of
any religion. She identified as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community and felt welcomed at
WCJU in that and in her “none but spiritual” identity. While she felt at home at WCJU, she
admitted that her community, what she calls her “hive,” lies outside of the university.

73

Violet
Violet, a second-year critical diversity studies major who is on track to graduate a year
early, was baptized Lutheran at an early age, she identified as an “agnostic leaning towards
atheist.” Despite how she defined herself, Violet shared that she attended Jewish synagogue quite
often. She attended weekly for the Sabbath, once a month for Torah study, and during holy days,
such as Purim and Yom Kippur. She no longer felt connected to the Lutheran tradition of her
childhood and shared that being at WCJU marked her fifteenth year of Catholic education and
being in a Catholic environment. She said, “my relationship with God is ever-changing. I don’t
know how to define that.” In other words, Violet was still on a journey toward defining her
relationship with religion and spirituality and understanding what she believed. As she stated,
I’m leaning towards more spiritual maybe, but I like organized religion because of the
community. I might not agree with all the dogma of organized religion, but I like to be
around people who think similarly.
For Violet, being in community was central to the experience of both religion and being in a
college environment.
Violet’s decision to attend WCJU was based on receiving generous scholarships. While
she was not looking for a religious institution and calls WCJU’s Catholic identity a “byproduct
of the university,” she shared that the Catholic Church does not make her uncomfortable. She
also conveyed that the Jesuit values of valuing education and a concern for social justice were
aligned with her personal values. She found her community within the local Jewish community
on campus and in the city and found ways to connect with other Jewish identified students with
whom she shared similar values.

74

Alex
Alex, a fourth-year theology and religious studies major who identified as Jewish reform
considered themselves to be both religious and spiritual. They practiced weekly Friday night
Shabbat services on their own, observed most Jewish holidays, and prayed at least three times
daily. Alex shared that in their freshman year they were recognizably Jewish saying, “at the time,
I wore Kippah, which is like a head covering. I had a shapen beard. I was following pretty much
orthodox practices, so I was very visibly Jewish.” Their identity as a more orthodox Jew, at the
time, was met with welcome, acceptance, and recognition. Alex explained that a climate of
welcome and acceptance was one reason they chose WCJU.
Having a strong relationship with their own tradition, they wanted a campus community
and environment that openly embraced religion.
I found [it being a Catholic university] really appealing at the time. I think because I’m
very religious, and I think going to public schools for my pre-college educational career, I
found a lot of frustrations and conflicts between my religious identity and practices and
the way public school was organized. I found it really appealing that WCJU was upfront
about it being Catholic and Jesuit.
Alex was attracted to the university’s Jesuit values of social justice and cura personalis and
knowing that it is a religious institution made them feel as if they and their identities would be
equally valued. While Alex shared that they struggled to find their social community early on,
they became involved with several Jewish organizations on campus, including Hillel. Alex took
on leadership roles that coordinated Shabbat programs, coordinated retreats for LGBTQIA+
students, and co-coordinated a student group that brought together LGBTQIA+ students of
various religious traditions to engage in conversations about both identities.
75

Kara
Kara, a psychology major in her fourth year at WCJU, grew up in the Mormon church,
but no longer identified herself with Mormonism nor Christianity in general. She identified
herself as a spiritual person who believed in the law of attraction and enjoyed having a
connection to the universe, the earth, and crystals. She expressed a belief in the existence of a
higher power but shared that she did not believe in nor adhere to a particular religious tradition
or belief system. Kara emphasized that she does not like the strict nature of religion and its
associated rules and structures. While she does not share the university’s Catholic identity, she
chose to attend WCJU due to its location in a progressive city and childhood dream of one day
living in that city. The cost of attending WCJU was a concern for Kara and her family, but the
religious identity of the school was never a cause of hesitation. On the contrary, her parents were
fond of the university and its values. Her mom was excited about the school as she had attended
a Jesuit university for graduate school.
Kara expressed feeling that she had found an open-minded community of like-minded
friends, at WCJU, with whom she could discuss matters of spirituality. She stated, “I’m always
talking about whatever I’m speaking into the universe, things like that; I’ve carried that language
since my freshman year. Sometimes we do meditations together, like on a full moon.” For Kara,
having supportive friends was important to her spiritual development. She conveyed that the
open-minded nature of her friends made her feel comfortable in inviting them to practice
meditations and manifestations with her.
Ariel
Ariel, a fourth-year business administration major, identified themselves as spiritually
and culturally Jewish. They were involved in the Jewish community at WCJU and more broadly.
76

Ariel transferred to WCJU from a private secular institution after desiring a school that they felt
“valued service, giving back, and shaping academics to effect change in the world.” They viewed
their Jewish values as closely aligned with the values of WCJU, especially in regard to cura
personalis. Ariel grew up in an interfaith home with a Jewish father and a mother that grew up
Catholic but later converted to Judaism. According to Ariel, their mother impressed in them that
the Jesuits have good values. Their mother’s high regard for the Jesuits influenced Ariel in a
positive way.
Ariel identified as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community and was impressed by how
accepting WCJU was of different gender identities. They recalled an instance of several Jesuits
introducing themselves to the community using their pronouns. Ariel viewed the moment as a
positive one that seemed in line with the school’s mission of inclusion. Similarly, Ariel’s
involvement with Hillel, at the local, national, and international levels, and their work with the
university’s rabbi-in-residence on Jewish and LGBTQIA+ issues, contributed to creating brave
spaces with other Jewish and LGBTQIA+ students on campus and with the university
community as a whole:
I started a student organization, through [campus ministry], and it’s essentially an
LGBTQ plus organization for those who identify as religious and spiritual or who are
exploring their religious or spiritual identities.
Ariel wanted to provide a space on campus for students exploring the intersection of faith and
LGBTQIA+ identities, which they were initially surprised did not already exist.
Nevan
A fourth-year accounting major, Nevan identified as Muslim and an active member of the
Muslim student association at WCJU, having served as its former president. He was born and
77

raised in the Islamic tradition by his parents, immigrants from the Middle East. While he said
that he has always felt close to his tradition, he shared that he started to explore Islam and
practice it more actively during college, especially during the pandemic when he had more time
to reconnect with his faith and his family. Part of growing in his faith over the past few years
involved taking a visible leadership role withing the Muslim student association where he was
able to build community with other students. As a commuter student, Nevan found ways to be
present on campus, to interact with other Muslim student association members, and to work for
greater support for Muslim students at the university.
Nevan chose to attend WCJU because he lived in the area and grew up hearing about the
reputation of WCJU’s business school and academic programs. He was also drawn to the
university’s commitment to cura personalis and respect for other traditions and appreciated that
“the university is open about their values, this is who we are and what we stand for,
unapologetically.” This resonated with Nevan as he viewed the university as welcoming of
different religious traditions and committed to working for “greater justice in the world.”
Amy
Amy, a third-year sociology major, was born and raised in a Jewish home and continued
to practice Judaism.
I am, I would say pretty religious. I grew up in an obviously Jewish home. I went to
Hebrew school after public school three to four times a week while growing up. I was Bat
Mitzvahed, I went to Jewish summer camp, I worked at Jewish summer camp, and I’ve
worked at synagogues as a teacher’s assistant. My Jewish community is pretty much the
source of everything I do, whether religiously or culturally, and both my parents are
Jewish as well. So, it’s kind of everything I’ve done.
78

Amy emphasized that her Jewish roots are a major part of her identity, so enrolling at WCJU
caused some hesitation. Amy and her family hesitated about being Jewish at a Jesuit campus.
However, Amy and her family felt more comfortable when they found out that the Jesuit values
of social justice mirrored their own concern for human rights and justice for the oppressed.
Amy chose WCJU because it was far enough from home and “in a big city.” Prior to
college, she was heavily involved in the Jewish community back home and was, at first,
apprehensive about leaving the comfort of her close-knit community. While at WCJU, Amy
shared that she was an active member of the Jewish student organization and the university’s
Hillel chapter. Through these organizations she met and befriended other Jewish students at
WCJU and formed strong relationships with students in the residence halls and in the classroom.
Erina
Erina, a second-year student majoring in biology with minors in health studies,
chemistry, and neuroscience, is a practicing Muslim that considers herself both spiritual and
religious. She shared that she adheres to the rules and practices of Islam, desires to find more
discipline in praying five times a day and believes in Allah. Though most of her time at WCJU
had been online, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, she found ways to remain active in the campus
community. Erina became the Muslim student association president in her first year and also
became the first Muslim student representative within student government in her first year.
So, when I came to WCJU, I found the opportunity of being on student senate. So, I took
a constituency and I’m the Muslim student representative here, the first. That’s one way
I’ve been in contact with Muslim students, because I want to be there for them and make
change and be welcoming.
79

One way of being more welcoming was to take the Muslim student association from being shut
down to growing during the pandemic. Erina credited her participation in the university’s Middle
East and North Africa club for helping her meet Muslim students from different backgrounds and
countries. She says that her goal is “to educate more people about what it means to be Muslim.”
Oliver
A fourth-year international studies major with an emphasis in environmental
development, Oliver identified himself as spiritual. Having been raised Catholic; he appreciated
the opportunities that he took to learn about different traditions through academic and
anthropological lenses. Oliver stated,
I think spiritual is the best way to define me, especially in the sense that I’ve gotten a
chance to learn a little about the history [of different traditions] from an anthropological
sense. It kind of informs my beliefs, not just in the faith sense, but my personal values
too, like this is the history. That’s what people did, or these are the good things they used
to do. I can base my values off of that.
Oliver’s sense of spirituality was deeply tied to his desire to do good and live out his values.
Due to his Catholic upbringing, Oliver felt that he could “manage four years” at a
Catholic Jesuit university, but he feared having a similar experience to friends that attended other
Catholic universities where “not being Catholic or not a practicing Catholic would stand out too
much.” Oliver felt different after his first day at WCJU when he realized that “the Jesuit
approach is interesting and different.” He shared that he realized that the university had a place
for everyone. As a result, Oliver continued his exploration of faith and spirituality though
programs in campus ministry. He spent time with the student leaders of retreats who he felt were
welcoming despite “being neither Catholic nor anything really.” He explored other traditions
80

through courses and individual study and built a “diverse group of friends” through his major,
campus ministry programs, and several cultural groups on campus.
Amir
A third-year nursing major, Amir decided to attend WCJU after his wife’s positive
experience as an undergraduate student at the university. He arrived at WCJU as a transfer
student with the perspective of one who had experienced the university through his wife’s
journey and through his own experiences as a visitor on campus. Amir, a practicing Muslim,
considers himself to be more spiritual than religious, saying, “I would say I am very spiritual. I
don’t practice by the book five times a day. And so, I’m not that strict when it comes to my faith.
I’m very spiritual. I’m very liberal, and I like that.” For Amir, WCJU was ideal not only because
of his wife’s experience but also because of the welcoming environment that he experienced
when attending student liturgies with his wife, a Catholic.
Despite his demanding nursing school schedule and commuter student status, Amir
shared that he was active in several student groups on campus, including the Arab student union,
the Middle East and North Africa student club, and the Muslim student association. He shared
that the history of the Muslim student association is a complicated one on campus and that it was
less active than it was when his wife started out as a student at WCJU. He shared that an already
dwindling group of students faced an even bigger obstacle during the pandemic, but that the new
president attempted to “refresh and revive the community.” As an immigrant from Morocco, he
emphasized his desire for a deeper connection to his faith tradition and other Muslims while
maintaining the “liberal and progressive values that I share with WCJU.”

81

Jaylyn
Jaylyn, a third-year chemistry major, identified as an “actively exploring none” saying,
“I’ve definitely, in recent times, been looking into different forms of spirituality, but I wouldn’t
say I adhere to one or anything at all really.” Jaylyn conveyed that her form of spirituality
focused on finding ways to become a better person or improve herself and then finding a related
“path or direction.”
Jaylyn chose WCJU because of the financial aid package that she received and the
reputation of the university. She identified as a first-generation student of color. The resources
and programs that WCJU offers to first generation students convinced her to attend the
university. She shared that she was involved in the university’s women in STEM program, which
was founded by her close friend. As a chemistry major, she wanted to build community with
other women in STEM for networking and empowerment. She was also a member of the women
in chemistry organization. Jaylyn found her community within those two organizations, her peers
in the classroom, and other friends on campus. She conveyed that she and her friends often
contemplate attending a student liturgy at the parish church on campus. She admitted that she
would not feel comfortable attending on her own, but she was curious. She does not actively find
ways of nourishing her spirituality but has attended open meditations and reflections “to be in
community with people who might be wondering and, I guess, wandering too.”
Emily
Emily, a third-year sociology major with a minor in Jewish studies and social justice, was
raised within a reform Jewish community and identified herself as “more on the spiritual side,
but I do identify as being religious.” While Emily considered herself more spiritual than
religious, she stated that, “I still think about my religion on most days. I'm still participating in
82

[WCJU] Hillel, and I would say that at least once a week, I am participating in something that
relates to my religion.” Emily's connection to Judaism influenced her to minor in Jewish studies
and social justice and made her active in Jewish life on campus and in the broader community.
Emily's decision to attend WCJU was based on a “differentiation between certain schools.”
While aware of the university's Jesuit Catholic identity it was not a concern when deciding on
what university to attend. She felt that WCJU’s values set it apart from the other universities she
considered. She stated,
I knew that I would be going to a school with a separate belief system from mine, but I
got the impression that the values of the school aligned with my own values, even though
they were separate religions, different religions.
Emily wanted to attend a university that shared her values and her interest in social justice. She
found her community of “similar-minded” individuals through her minor, major, friendships in
the residence halls, and active participation in Hillel.
Marina
A fourth-year international studies major and Middle Eastern studies minor, Marina
considers herself an “atheist with a spiritual bent.” She shared, “I think I’m actively thinking
about it. I think I am a little bit spiritual, but not religious, if that makes sense. And I am still a
little bit questioning.” Marina was raised in a Catholic family and that was one reason she chose
to attend WCJU. She was familiar with Jesuit and Catholic values, through conversations with
her family, and she realized that those values “synced with my beliefs and value system as a
social justice atheist.” As a result, she felt no hesitation in attending WCJU. She emphasized,
I didn’t really have any hesitation just because I know that Catholic students aren’t the
majority [at WCJU]. And just from the campus culture, I got that a lot of students don’t
83

seem to be Catholic at all. Really, there’s only a few students that I’ve met that have been
Catholic.
Marina’s comfort level with the campus came from both her upbringing and her understanding
that she was part of the majority non-Christian population at the university.
Although an atheist, Marina joined the Jesuit Scholar Institute, the great books program
focused on the study of western civilization and Catholicism. She was interested in learning
more about Catholicism from an academic perspective and living within a close-knit community
of students that took courses and socialized together. She found her community within the
institute, but also within her Middle Eastern studies minor. She shared that she has many Muslim
friends and is aware of their experiences in the United States on campus. Marina feels a desire to
understand different traditions even if she feels that religion is not something with which she can
ever identify.
Christian Participants
Table 2 provides an overview of Catholic or Christian identified students followed by a
participant profile for each.

84

Table 2
Catholic and Non-Catholic Christian Students
Student name and
pronouns
Year Major Religious/spiritual tradition
Luke (he/him) 3rd Psychology; criminal
justice minor
Roman Catholic
John (he/him) 3rd Chemistry Roman Catholic
Francesca
(she/her)
3rd Biology Roman Catholic
Cyrus (he/him) 4th Psychology Armenian Orthodox

Luke
Luke, a third-year student majoring in psychology with minors in criminal justice studies,
health studies, and neuroscience, identified as an “actively religious” practicing Catholic. He
shared that he attended mass on a weekly basis and was sometimes active at Church during the
week. On campus, Luke belonged to a Catholic student prayer group that met once a week to
discuss different forms of prayer and to fellowship. He also engaged with different groups on
campus focused on leadership, culture, or faith.
Attending WCJU was an easy decision for Luke. While he was hesitant about the Jesuits,
a religious order he had no familiarity with, he was drawn to the university’s involvement in the
broader community and its social justice programs. While at WCJU, Luke found his community
within the Jesuit Scholar Institute when he enrolled in courses with others who lived in the same
living-learning community and shared an interest in learning about Catholicism. The institute
helped to nourish his faith through weekly non-mandatory community liturgies in the Jesuit
85

chapel on campus. Luke wanted to be part of this study to offer his observations as a Catholic
student deeply connected with the religious aspects of the campus community.
John
John, a third-year chemistry major and a practicing Catholic shared that he was a mix of
religious and spiritual. John identified as an active member of the Catholic Church who served as
the master of ceremonies for one of the local bishops in a nearby county. At WCJU, he served as
the lead altar server for student liturgies and major liturgies on campus. His decision to attend
WCJU was based on the university’s commitment to cura personalis, which John understands as
“care for the body” and closely aligned with his passion for science and religion. He wanted to
attend a university that would assist him with fulfilling his “purpose to serve communities
through a scientific faith.”
John viewed the Church as a major part of his life and shared that he felt open and
comfortable sharing his beliefs with others, but he conveyed that he also tries to be respectful
and understanding of other traditions “to foster dialogue in a respectful manner where, we may
not be in the same boat, but we can understand where we come from, religiously and culturally,
to build firm relationships.” His desire to help create a more welcoming and inclusive
community at WCJU was the impetus for wanting to participate in this study.
Francesca
Francesca, a junior year biology major on the pre-med track, identified as Catholic. More
specifically, Francesca referred to herself as a “casual Catholic” because she believes in God but
was neither devout nor strict about her practice. Her Catholic upbringing influenced her decision
to attend WCJU as she felt that it would be familiar and comfortable. Since Francesca grew up
attending Catholic primary and secondary schools, she felt that WCJU would be the right fit
86

because of its values and because not everyone at the university was going to be Catholic nor
judge her for where she stood regarding her faith. She admitted that, though she is not a devout
Catholic, she found her community through Catholic groups on campus through campus ministry
and through singing and playing the guitar in the liturgical choir. Even through the pandemic,
Francesca continued to contribute to the virtual choir and described it as “my strongest
connection to my faith and community during that time.” She also shared that she was an active
member of the Filipino cultural club, which she credited with helping her grow in both her
cultural and religious roots.
Francesca considered herself strong in her faith on a spiritual level and felt that WCJU
made her feel accepted. She shared that WCJU provided students with opportunities to explore
different traditions and beliefs but wondered if more could be done for “non-Catholic students or
for those of us still questioning or struggling to figure out what we believe.” She was interested
in joining this study as someone with close friends at WCJU and in her hometown that are from
different religious traditions.
Cyrus
Cyrus, a fourth-year psychology major at WJCU, was a non-traditional student working
on completing his degree after taking a four-year hiatus to work at a technology startup. He was
born and raised in the Armenian Orthodox church. He described his faith tradition as closely tied
to Catholicism but having the strong influence of Islamic tradition and culture. While he
identified as Armenian Orthodox, he considered himself spiritual and not religious, saying, “I
definitely don't consider myself religious. Nevertheless, there are influences which impact how I
treat others.” He described his decision to attend WCJU as one based on financial aid rather than
87

the values of the university. However, he remembered wanting to attend WCJU because of the
way it connected social justice to the curriculum.
Cyrus was not active on campus due to his outside work responsibilities, but he explored
different activities from time to time. While he was not active with the Christian Orthodox
student group on campus, he credited the university for “trying to reach out to the small
population of Orthodox students in the community.” He was interested in the study because of
his close relationships with Muslim students on campus and his interest in the psychology of
belonging.
Faculty and Staff Participants
Table 3 offers a description of three faculty, administration, and staff members, at WCJU,
that provided clarification about aspects of the university that were brought up by students. To
protect the anonymity of each individual minimal descriptors are used.

Table 3
Faculty, Administration, and Staff Participants
Role on campus Years at WCJU Religious/spiritual tradition
Administrator Over 10 years Christian (non-Catholic)
Faculty member Over 10 years Muslim
Staff member Over 10 years Roman Catholic

88

Findings by Research Question
Findings for this study are organized according to the five research questions that framed
this study. This section presents the evidence gathered from the student interviews as well as the
themes that emerged from the review of literature and from analysis of the collected data.
Research Question 1: How Is Christian Privilege Perceived by Non-Christian and Non-
religiously Affiliated Students?
This question focused on how non-Christian students generally define and understand
Christian Privilege. Two main themes emerged after analyzing the data collected from the
interviews: (a) hegemony and normalization and (b) discrimination. The following is a summary
of participants’ responses.
Hegemony and Normalization
Hegemony refers to the ways in which a dominant group wields their power in such a
way as to be accepted as the norm (Blumenfeld, 2020). Participants defined Christian privilege
using terms such as “hegemonic structure,” “dominance,” “power,” and “norm.” These terms
along with reflections on how those terms relate to non-Christian traditions and belief systems
allowed students to examine how they perceive Christian privilege even if they do not always
name it as such. Amy discussed the notion of privilege and freedom of religion that comes with
being Christian:
I would say the privilege is being a part of the overarching hegemonic structure of our
society. That, although we are a nation of freedom of religion, it’s definitely the basis of
what everything functions on, and you definitely have privilege in all aspects. I think the
most basic one I can think of is school. When it comes to public school, especially, I was
at a very big disadvantage compared to Christian students. I missed a lot of school,
89

growing up, for Jewish holidays and that created some tensions with teachers because I
had to miss school for several days at a time to observe holidays. But, when you’re
Christian, you don’t have to do something like that because even though there’s a
separation of church and government, it doesn’t hold true for public school because we
observed those national holidays, Christian holidays.
Amy’s experience of being Jewish and recognizing Christian privilege, while in her earlier
education in the public school system, was not the only way in which she perceives Christian
privilege. She also recalled the difficulty in finding her religion represented during the holiday
season saying, “every holiday season I can’t find Hanukkah candles, one’s that fit in the
menorah, so easily. I have to go to multiple stores just to find something that I need to observe
my traditions, whereas it’s the norm to find Christian symbols and objects almost everywhere.”
Amy pointed to the lack of representation of her faith tradition and devaluation of her Jewish
faith in different aspects of her life, from her education to her everyday awareness of a primarily
dominant Christian culture.
Alex, who also identified as Jewish, agreed stating, “Christian privilege involves the
things that both Christian and secular non-religious people would consider normal, though
normal is something that needs to be defined too. But I think it’s the taking for granted of how
deeply ingrained Christianity is in everyday life.” For Alex, Christian privilege runs far deeper
than what can be observed and is a prevalent part of a lived experience in the United States. “It’s
everywhere at all times, underneath this bigger umbrella of privilege that is part of our society. It
is what it is until those yielding that privilege recognize it.” For Alex, Christian privilege was
institutional, cultural, and an accepted part of the country’s social structures.
90

Chris defined Christian privilege as being the norm to which all other traditions are
compared. He shared:
Christian privilege? What I would define as Christian privilege is the privilege of being
the default. Everything gets compared to Christianity in America at least. And so, people
ask does something align with Christian values, for example. It’s a kind of ideology
surrounding us. I feel that even though I’m no longer Christian, there’s a certain degree
of Christian privilege that I still carry just because I intuitively understand what Christian
values are and, well, I can just coast by on that in different spaces. I don’t really have to
think about what I’m doing and whether or not it aligns with Christian values because I
just understand what those are.
Chris discussed his own privilege as a former Christian in being able to navigate spaces where
Christian values are prominent. His understanding of his own privilege in having background
knowledge of Christianity was a common thread among all participants that were either formerly
Christian or had spent time in Christian educational institutions in the past. Chris’ comment
about Christianity being the norm to which “everything gets compared” highlighted an observed
normalization or universalization of Christian values and principles in American society that was
discussed by all participants. Such a devaluation of other traditions influences the experiences of
non-Christian students, where they compare themselves to the Christian majority.
For Mia, Christian privilege is part of the experience of living in the United States and
how that influences expectations held by society:
I think it’s the fact that Christian faith is the norm when going about everyday life. I think
it’s just the overall experience of being a person living in this country that you’re
expected to know things about the Christian faith, and you’re expected to already know
91

what is going on, but that’s not and can’t be true for everybody. Especially if you come
from a different country that doesn’t practice Christianity, it can be confusing, but it is
still expected in this country.
Mia pointed to knowledge of Christianity as an expectation held by Christian privilege. As a
practitioner of Judaism, Mia emphasized that not everyone can have knowledge of Christianity,
because not everyone is Christian. She also made a distinction between expectations in this
country even for practitioners from other religions or countries where Christianity is not the
dominant tradition.
Discrimination
Due to the normalization of Christianity and perceived expectations of having knowledge
of Christian values and traditions, all participants shared their thoughts on discrimination tied to
Christian privilege. Students discussed Christian privilege as the ability to practice religious
beliefs and spirituality freely without having to justify one’s beliefs in the way that non-
Christians are sometimes asked to justify their tradition or practices. Marina shared,
I think Christian privilege is being able to practice Christianity and you’re never really
questioned for it; there’s always a space for it and you never have to justify your religion,
whereas some other religions, you have to justify. For Christianity, you never really have
to do that. It’s just normalized.
Marina spoke about the freedom to practice Christianity because being Christian is viewed as
normal and not something that needs to be justified in the way that other traditions may have to
justify their beliefs or practices. Amir echoed Marina’s perspective and contributed his thoughts
on how Christian privilege also influences the commonality of a tradition:
92

So being Christian here in the states basically gives you privilege because it is the most
dominant or most common faith of the country. You can find churches everywhere, that’s
what I’ve seen as an outsider. So basically, there’s not even a very small chance of being
discriminated against because of your religious beliefs.
Amir’s example suggested that the visibility of Christian places of worships adds to the
commonality and acceptance of Christianity. The presence of more churches suggests more
Christians and, therefore, may suggest more societal acceptance of Christianity and its practices.
Natalie, who grew up in France and already lived in the United States for a number of
years before college offered her perspective as an individual that does not practice a formalized
religious tradition:
So, Christian privilege…it’s like you have the freedom to practice your religion in places
without feeling any sort of discrimination against you. Like, I don’t know if you’re
familiar with Muslim, Islam tradition, like it’s insane the way they’re treated for just
practicing their religion. You know? So, for me, that’s like a privilege within the
religion…having this and being able to be yourself without having anyone, you know,
like pointing fingers at you and even calling you a terrorist or something. And here and in
France, [Christian privilege] is also closely tied to white privilege, so all kinds of doors
open for you. It’s easier to be yourself, maybe as a Christian than to be someone else…I
mean…putting myself in other peoples’ skin, I would feel more comfortable coming out
as Christian than maybe a Jewish person or a Muslim person.
With her experience of living in both France and the United States, Natalie communicated her
awareness of the discrimination experienced by minoritized traditions in both countries. At the
time of this study, the French senate had passed an amendment to ban the wearing of the hijab by
93

minors in the country (Shapiro & Beardsley, 2021). Natalie highlighted her comfortability in
calling herself and “passing as” a Christian because of the freedom she would have and the lack
of suspicion she would face.
Violet tied Christian privilege to race, ethnicity, and the unfamiliarity of western society
with polytheistic traditions. She shared,
I think primarily [Christian privilege] is a history of marginalization that Christians don’t
really experience here. There’s a lot of anti-Semitism and marginalization of black and
brown people, some of whom are Muslim. Buddhists and Hindus are also marginalized
for not being monotheistic and strictly within the bounds of what people in western
society are familiar with…they just have more access and more spaces to be a part of.
Violet spoke of the cultural and ethnic ties that may also lead to the discrimination of some
groups of non-Christians. She also highlighted a key difference between eastern and western
practices that may signify a lack of understanding and lead to the discrimination of some non-
Christian groups. Similarly, Kara, who identified as non-religious but spiritual, shared her
thoughts on discrimination using the example of Muslim students:
Muslims face terrible discrimination just for being Muslim. I’m taking an intro to Islam
class right now and it’s super interesting, the similarities and shared values that all
religions are intertwined with. So, most of the discrimination towards people who
practice Islam is merely because of their appearance, race, or ethnicity. It’s definitely
something in the forefront when I think of religion and discrimination.
Kara identified the various intersections of race, ethnicity, and religion that can contribute to
increased discrimination for non-Christians. This serves as an example of how Whiteness
94

coupled with Christian privilege can contribute to negative experiences for some non-Christian
groups.
The Christian participants in this study agreed with the definitions and perceptions of
Christian privilege provided by non-Christian participants. Luke offered the following reflection:
So, in the United States, maybe even in this city, I feel like Christian privilege means the
majority of us are Christian. Even the way our government is set up, the words on our
dollar bills...there’s a Christian background to it and I feel like there’s always been that
slight discrimination towards other religions, despite some of them being very similar to
[Christianity] and believing in the same God. We still discriminate against them.
Luke reflected on the discrimination experienced by non-Christians even though several
traditions share similarities. Much like non-Christian participants, Luke discussed the
normalization of Christianity in varying aspects of culture in the United States. As Cyrus also
shared:
For me, in this country, there’s a lot of Christian privilege and it overlaps with white
privilege. It’s just ingrained in this U.S. culture that Christianity is dominant…from
government to holidays to pop culture references. Beneath the layers of freedom of
religion is the reality that we still hold Christianity above any other systems of belief.
Cyrus alluded to the unspoken understanding that Christianity is the dominant tradition in the
United States. Even as a member of a denomination within the majority, Cyrus recognizes the
normalization of Christianity in the United States and its place in the mainstream culture of
western society.
The interview data from the participants indicated a general understanding of Christian
hegemony and a belief that Christian privilege is pervasive in their lived experience. Participants
95

described feeling as if their belief systems or religious traditions are often held in comparison to
Christianity or deemed inferior to it. The normalization of Christianity as the dominant religion
in the United States led some participants to discuss the benefits of being Christian as having the
freedom to live and practice a religious tradition or belief system without judgement or
discrimination. The interview data suggests that the influence of Christian privilege on
participants forms part of their understanding of their non-Christian identity, which leads to
acceptance of their traditions as less respected and secondary to Christianity.
Research Question 2: What Role Does Christian Privilege Play in the Lives of Non-
Christian and Non-religiously Affiliated Students at Jesuit Catholic Universities?
This question focused on how Christian privilege influences the lives of non-Christian
and non-religiously affiliated students specifically within the context of a Jesuit institution of
higher education. One major theme emerged during data analysis of participants’ responses.
While all non-Christian participants felt that the same themes discussed in question one were
also prevalent within the context of a Jesuit Catholic university, the theme of maintaining silence
in the classroom or on campus emerged.
Most non-Christian participants, 13 out of 16, named silence as part of their overall
experience as non-Christians in the United States. Several participants, however, indicated that
the Christian privilege present on campus often lead them to feelings of being devalued and
disempowered by having to maintain silence in different spaces. Marina reflected on her
experience of feeling shut out in the classroom and ultimately choosing silence:
I’m taking this class called early Christian art. The people who are Christian always get
called on because they know everything about it. And sometimes the professor discusses
the art as if we should all have this Christian knowledge. So, I stay quiet. I don’t raise my
96

hand because I could be wrong, and I don’t ask questions because I feel like it’s
something I should know but don’t. It’s the feeling that you’re lacking something even
though you know you don’t because it’s not your experience, but it makes me feel
completely shut out, so I shut down. I just do the work, but I won’t contribute otherwise.
Marina’s example spoke to the prevalence of Christian privilege in her course. Though the
course was focused on Christian art there existed an unspoken belief that everyone in the
classroom was familiar with the Christian content. Marina shared that she enrolled in the course
because she found Renaissance art beautiful, but that the classroom environment made it difficult
for her to feel comfortable. Similarly, Kara shared, “I would say Christian privilege isn’t as big
an issue at WCJU as it is outside our little bubble, but there have been moments. I was in an
introduction to philosophy course, and it felt like knowing about Christianity was expected. I
have never raised my hand less in a class.” Kara and Marina both felt inhibited in classrooms
where they felt an expectation to have prior knowledge of Christianity, its history, and related
concepts. Feelings of being devalued or minoritized in the classroom led to silence in courses
that both participants initially felt excited about taking.
Students also expressed a reluctance to openly talking about their faith tradition publicly.
Natalie expressed a reluctance to share her spirituality: “If you’re not Christian, it’s not an easy
thing to just share…even at a mostly non-Christian Catholic campus.” Similarly, Violet shared,
“It feels like in the [United States] it’s just easy to assume everyone is Christian and if they
aren’t, well, it’s hard to know how people will react. So, it’s not something you just go around
saying. Maybe when asked, yes, because then I think people are more open, they want to know.”
For both participants, the normalization of Christianity in society and, by extension, the
university setting encouraged them to stay silent about their belief systems. In both cases, Natalie
97

and Violet referred to their non-Christian identities as creating difficulties in openly
acknowledging their spirituality on campus.
Interview data implied that Christian privilege leads to the silence of non-Christian
students inside and outside of the classroom environment. Participants shared a reluctance to
share their religious identities with others unless they perceived an openness to acceptance of
non-Christian traditions or belief systems. The experience of participants in the classroom speaks
to the expectations of familiarity with Christianity, its history, and its influence on a largely
western culture. Students expressed the consequences of Christian privilege on campus as
leading to feelings of devaluation and discomfort which, inevitably, lead to silence in spaces
where they desired to be included.
Research Question 3: To What Extent Does Christian Privilege Shape the Sense of
Belonging and Inclusion of Non-Christian and Non-religiously Affiliated Students?
This question focused on the influence of Christian privilege on the sense of belonging
and inclusion of non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students. Two themes emerged
during data analysis: (a) Religious holidays and observances and (b) Christian symbolism. Below
is a summary of the experiences articulated by the participants.
Religious Holidays and Observances
All non-Christian participants cited the academic calendar and its contribution to non-
Christian students’ inability to freely observe religious holidays and observances as a particular
challenge in their college experience. Academic calendars at Jesuit universities include major
Christian holidays, such as Christmas and Easter, as university holidays. Non-Christian religious
holidays and observances are not recognized as university holidays at Jesuit institutions. Mia
noted, “I do think it makes it difficult. Like, the only holiday that I think we get to have off is
98

Passover because it falls on Easter, So, it works out, but it’s just because of Easter and timing.”
Violet echoed Mia’s feelings saying, “I’m really used to it. You know, having Easter off is
something I’ve always been used to…Easter Sunday, obviously Christmas. I think I’m pretty
used to it too.” Religiously affiliated non-Christian students shared that they have adapted to the
reality of a Christian-influenced calendar both at religiously affiliated institutions and even
within non-religiously affiliated institutions.
One struggle for students was requesting time off for religious holidays and observances.
Emily related her experience with wanting to observe Yom Kippur:
For Yom Kippur, it fell during the week. I didn’t have that day off but needed to get it off
at school and it was this big fiasco trying to get that day off, trying to go to different
professors. I even went to my academic advisor, and it was a little bit difficult to get that
approved as a day that I could have an [excused] absence. Christian students have that
privilege where their holidays are on the calendar, so they don’t have to worry about
things like that. We have Easter off, whereas we don’t have Yom Kippur off as a day and
that is one of the biggest Jewish holidays. It was a little bit difficult. I had to prove I was
[part of] a synagogue and prove different things. It was just me trying to go and pray on
Yom Kippur.
Ariel related a similar experience where a professor had scheduled an exam on one of the holiest
days of the Jewish calendar. Here they recounted the process:
I had trouble with Jewish holidays my first semester at WJCU. One of my professors
scheduled a midterm on one of the holiest days of the year. And I spoke to him about it
and asked if I could take it [at a different time]. I was even willing to take it beforehand. I
always try and do that. I try to be extremely accommodating and say, “I’ll take it early if I
99

need to” even though I shouldn’t be the one making the accommodation, but he said no.
And so, I went to my [academic coach] and she had to report it to his department chair to
get it sorted out. But this is not a surprise to me because that’s something I’ve
experienced since grade school.
Emily and Ariel’s experiences are examples of how, for non-Christian students, the process of
asking for time off for a holiday or observance may prove difficult and stressful. Non-Christian
students at WJCU, and other Jesuit institutions, must make requests for excused time off for
religious holidays and observances. One administrator shared,
It really is up to the discretion of each individual professor to grant the request or not…to
make it excused or unexcused. We do not have a religious exemption policy…there is no
uniform way of handling these requests, but this is not a rarity. I think we are still
hanging on to the leftover ways of doing things from a time when the majority of students
at Catholic institutions were Catholic.
Even with a majority non-Christian population on campus, measures have not been taken to
create an easier process for non-Christian students to request time off to worship or observe
religious holidays. Students are faced with formal processes that involve different offices on
campus, verification of needing the time off, and the possibility of taking an unexcused absence,
which could directly affect a student’s course grade. As Emily summarized, “I have to go
through more to get approved. I think it is pretty well known that Jews go and pray on Yom
Kippur and Muslims fast on Ramadan, it’s on the Google calendar, but I have to justify my need
to have time off.” Participants felt that, despite the culture of inclusion on campus, it is not
always extended to religious diversity as the free exercise of non-Christian holidays and
100

observances requires justification and, at times, choosing academics over religion or religion
over academics.
Muslim students that observed the month Ramadan were met with various challenges that
included, but were not limited to, asking for time off to observe the beginning and end of
Ramadan, asking to step outside of class for prayer, and rescheduling or finding alternate exam
times that coincided with times when the fast is broken. The majority of participants cited
Ramadan as an example of the Christian privilege reflected in the academic calendar and school
policy. Emily, a Jewish student, compared her experience to the Muslim experience saying,
“Like Yom Kippur, there’s Ramadan. I think too about our Muslin brothers and sisters.” Much
like Ariel and Emily’s experiences, Muslim students faced hurdles of their own. Erina shared,
I’ve never been made to feel like “oh, you Muslim student, you shouldn’t be here or I’m
not accepting of you.” But Ramadan has been a problem here. For a few years now, even
before me being a student, sometimes Ramadan is during finals or during commencement
week. It’s hard to be a student fasting for Ramadan. We won’t eat or drink anything, not
even water from dawn to sunset. So, we are fasting during the day when classes are
happening. It’s hard, but harder if there are exams and most professors will not
reschedule. I think they don’t understand about Muslims.
While Muslim students did not ask to be excused for the full month of Ramadan, they did ask for
the opportunity to take exams during non-fasting hours. A faculty member that supported the
Muslim student community shared that, in years when Ramadan coincided with finals, several
Muslim students asked for alternative testing arrangements, but the university had not been able
to accommodate those requests and the question had been “left to the discretion of the
professor.” Erina shared that “I and members of the Muslim student association haven’t met
101

many professors willing to accommodate. Some have allowed for us to quickly step away for
prayer, but not for different exam times.” Most participants, 18 out of 20, felt that there existed a
basic lack of understanding of non-Christian traditions and how to make room for non-Christian
students in school policies.
All Muslim and Jewish students shared that commencement exercises at the end of
Winter and Spring semesters are often scheduled on Friday evenings. Friday is the holiest day of
the week for Muslims and Friday evenings mark the start of Jewish Shabbat, the holiest day of
the week in Judaism. Alex shared that they were aware of students and professors that had to
choose between their religion and commencement: “I know several alums from Hillel that, when
they were students here, they were torn between attending Shabbat or making it to their
graduation. I think some tried to petition to graduate earlier in the day or on another day with
other programs, but that was a hassle. I was invited to grad by a friend, but I kept Shabbat
instead.” Similarly, Nevan shared, “So, maybe it was 2018 or 2019 but one commencement
ceremony landed on a Friday of Ramadan. I know one Muslim student that didn’t attend in order
to observe prayer. I guess the good thing is Ramadan moves so it won’t coincide every year, but
still, it should not be a choice between two important things.” Alex and Nevan’s observations
communicated a struggle faced by non-Christian students who, on some occasions, may face the
difficult choice between the faith that they love or a milestone celebration. A former ministry
staff member shared that the conflict between religious observances, final exams, and
commencement remerges every year. While she shared that the university is aware of student
and family concerns, the university has not committed to a university-wide policy that would
“make these types of situations less complicated for students.”
Luke, a Christian-identified participant, offered the following observation:
102

I don’t know how as a non-Christian one can put up with the calendar. I think it was last
year, pre-Covid, when Ramadan was starting it was also finals week. The university
offered no alternatives for testing. So, I saw my friends stressing out studying and
preparing to take exams without having eaten. It’s Islam’s holiest month. I’m Catholic,
they’d never schedule a final on Good Friday, so why not create alternatives for Muslims
or other traditions?
Luke not only recognized his privilege as a Catholic student at a Jesuit university but also the
struggle that students from other traditions face on campus. Luke also echoed a question that
John asked during the interview: “My Muslim friend asked for a different test time during
Ramadan last year. My Hindu friend needed time off for a festival or holiday or something and
had to talk to five different people. It has to be easier than that. Why isn’t it easier than that? I
don’t have to ask anyone for anything…it’s just kind of built in.” John, like Luke, reflected on
the academic calendar’s Christian orientation. John reflected on how his observance and holiday
needs are included as part of the university’s structure and how there should be less challenges
for non-Christian students.
Christian Symbolism
While each participant acknowledged that they expected Christian symbolism at a
Catholic university, some believed that a religiously diverse institution, such as WJCU, would
not display Christian symbolism in student spaces. Similarly, 75% of participants did not
anticipate having to attend any events at the parish church on campus.
In their first and final years, students are expected to attend major events, such as
convocation and commencement, at the Church. Violet shared, “You don’t necessarily have to
go to mass every week here. It’s not mandatory. But commencement takes place in the church
103

and, during orientation, [the president of the university] gives us a speech there. There was kind
of a prayer service vibe to it.” While Violet had Catholic schooling in her past that made her
accustomed to attending Catholic liturgies and prayer services, she admits feeling that “[the
church] is a dedicated space for Catholics and that’s obvious. I’ve never heard of them holding
synagogue or mosque services there, so there is no way to identify it as other than what it is, so
when we have events there you can’t separate the two.” Although convocations and
commencement ceremonies are not exclusively Christian, some participants expressed a level of
discomfort with having to attend any event at the church. Francesca, a Catholic student, also
shared, “I’ve always wondered how the non-Catholics feel in the church. I guess the other
Christian traditions would be okay with it, but what if you’re not Christian? Suddenly, you’re
starting off being welcomed in a church. There’s a cross, statues, candles…I don’t know how I
would feel.” Francesca’s was a sympathetic reflection on what non-Christian students might feel
upon being required to attend events at the church.
Ariel, though active with campus ministry, shared their discomfort with milestone events
being held in the church:
My biggest hesitation coming to WJCU was that graduation is going to be in the church. I
just felt and still feel extremely uncomfortable by the idea of graduating in church. I
wasn’t excited about it, so thanks to the pandemic I’m glad I’m not sitting in that church
and that my family doesn’t have to sit in that church.
Ariel did not experience the first-year convocation due to their status as a transfer student but
expressed relief in not being forced to participate in an event at the church. Though Ariel is one
of the most active students on campus, among the participants, with campus ministry, the church
is a symbol of privilege, power, and inaccessibility with which they do not feel at ease.
104

A handful of students mentioned the presence of crosses, crucifixes, and statues in some
of the academic buildings. Jaylyn referred to the “giant statue of the woman” in one building as
being “prominent and haunting.” She was referencing a larger-than-life statue of the Virgin Mary
at one end of a hallway in an older academic building. Marina described her observations of
crosses and crucifixes as “the experience of attending a Catholic school” and an
“uncomfortability you learn to get over.” Nevan agreed with Marina that crosses, crucifixes, and
statues can be “in your face” and shared, “But, in Islam Jesus and Mary are important figures so
it doesn’t bother me as much as it probably would someone for whom they are not important.”
For Tracee, however, the experience is mixed:
I am not expecting to see Buddha, but I guess I’m not expecting to see statues at the end
of the hallways either. But, I guess, I also chose to be in a program that is focused on
Catholicism and so, I mean, I made a conscious choice to be more surrounded by it than I
would otherwise. So, it shouldn’t bother me.
Tracee echoes the mixed feelings of most participants who describe their feelings of belonging
and inclusion being part of a conscious choice to attend a Jesuit Catholic university while also
seeking to feel included as a members of the university’s non-Christian majority.
The interview data suggests that non-Christian students face difficulties in obtaining
permission for excused absences in the wake of important religious holidays or observances.
Participants shared experiences in which they felt forced to prove their religious identity or make
choices between milestone academic events and religious observances. These challenges incited
feelings of frustration, powerlessness, and as if the institution did not make enough effort to help
non-Christians feel welcomed. Additionally, the Christian symbolism on campus made
participants feel uncomfortable, especially at mandatory events in visibly Christian spaces, such
105

as the church on campus. Participants’ experience suggests that there exists an expectation of
conformity to milestone events being held in a church rather than in a neutral location on
campus.
Research Question 4: What Challenges Do Non-Christian and Non-religiously Affiliated
Students Face in Finding Opportunities to Exercise Their Beliefs On-Campus?
This question focused on the challenges faced by non-Christian students at Jesuit
Catholic universities in terms of finding opportunities to exercises their beliefs on campus. Two
themes emerged during data analysis: campus spaces and institutional support. Below is a
summary of the experiences articulated by the participants.
Campus Spaces
Participants involved with religious traditions that require spaces for gatherings, worship,
or events provided greater input about dedicated space on campus than participants that
identified themselves as spiritual, agnostic, or atheist. Participants that identified themselves as
spiritual but not members of an organized religion identified their homes, residence hall rooms,
or nature as locations where they practice their spirituality. None of these participants indicated
that they faced obstacles in exercising their beliefs on campus, but instead, felt appreciated and
accepted at WCJU by fellow students, faculty, and staff.
Practicing Jewish and Muslim participants were particularly vocal about dedicated spaces
at WCJU for non-Christian students. WCJU has a single dedicated space for interfaith use that
several students highlighted. The interfaith prayer room is a room with cushions on the floor,
prayer books from different faith traditions, artwork representing multiple religious traditions,
and an intentions book where visitors can write down their prayer intentions. Alex shared,
106

I really think that there are spaces for those who are looking for that and want that. There
are different student orgs like Hillel, Jews for Justice, and the [group for LGBTQIA+ and
religion]. There’s also the interfaith prayer room if you’re looking for a worship or prayer
space…I’ve actually met more Muslim students there than anyone else.
Alex discussed both social spaces and dedicated spaces for prayer at WCJU. In his view, anyone
who seeks a space to socialize with fellow members of certain traditions will find it along with a
place for individual and communal prayer.
Amy shared that, as a Jewish student, she felt that spaces are available for Jewish groups
to meet, build community, and pray together:
The Jewish student organization, especially, has a designated space on campus where it
would meet pre-Covid. I went every few weeks sporadically during the semester, but it
was always in the same space. Shabbat was held there and other events. Hillel has a space
too in the ministry office and it also has a space all the way at [the other university it
serves in the city].
Amy’s experience was one of accessible and dedicated spaces. She shared that she knew exactly
where to go for events organized by the different Jewish organizations to which she belonged.
Mia’s experience was similar as she shared, “I could always depend on Shabbat on Fridays in the
same place at the same time. There are a lot of organizations on campus scrambling for space,
but Hillel doesn’t seem to.”
Muslim participants’ experiences did not mirror those of Jewish students on campus.
Amir observed that another university in the city offered space for a small mosque on campus
while Muslim students at WCJU struggle to find space:
107

It’s a little bit sad. At [another university in the city] there is even a section that was
reserved for a mosque. That’s a public university. We say we respect religion more here,
but we do not have that on campus. At least we have the interfaith room for prayer.
Amir’s reflection echoed a common expectation that all participants held for the university.
Because of its identity as a Jesuit Catholic institution whose mission is to be inclusive,
participants held higher expectations for how the university should make itself more welcoming
of non-Christian students. Amir shared that, while he does not expect the university to create a
permanent room for a “makeshift mosque” he did feel that more could be done:
It really depends on how many people need to use it because if only a few people would
like to go, I think then that interfaith room is enough, but if the interfaith room is too
small for this, then I think they should, at least reserve a room somewhere for prayer
time, like once a week or something like that. The Muslim students have really struggled
without a space. I remember when my wife was a student here the Muslim students
would roll the carpet around looking for a space. And before Covid, well there was
nothing. We were supposed to have a space or something for Ramadan but then Covid
happened.
Amir shared the struggle that Muslim students faced to find a space to pray and hold events. He
also communicated an expectation of Muslim students having access to a space beyond the
interfaith room for, at least, one day a week. The frustration that Amir shared was not unique to
his experience as other Muslim participants shared their frustrations and solutions.
Nevan, in his leadership role for the Muslim student association, was involved in several
conversations with university leadership and others on campus about greater support for Muslim
students on campus. During his time at WCJU he also witnessed substantial issues with the
108

Muslim student association that did not help Muslim students feel “welcome nor seen” on
campus. He shared:
It gets complicated to explain, because I am still figuring out if this an institutional
problem or if it is just about our group. So, outside the ministry office there is a multifaith
room, but it was too small for the group prayers that we would have on Fridays. We have
to reserve a room through the events system. It was on the other side of the ministry
office and so we had to push like a cart that contained a big prayer rug across campus
every Friday to get there in time. Sometimes we’d ask if we could store the rug
somewhere in that building and keep it there until the next week. Sometimes we had a
scheduling conflict. Prayer was scheduled in that room, but there would be a scheduling
conflict because of someone else’s event. We just usually ceded the room to them and
then we scrambled at the last second to go and figure something out. Once it happened
that the scheduling conflict was with the ministry office itself. I mean, what else could we
do? I guess we saw it as just being lucky we had a space sometimes.
Nevan’s frustration turned into conformity, which some participants understood as a necessary
response to feeling that they or their traditions were devalued. The struggle to find a space on
campus to hold prayer, even after a space was reserved, led to many feelings of frustration from
Nevan, Amir, and other students. As Erina explained, “It led to many hurt feelings. The space
was not the only concern. It left a lot of Muslim students feeling like there was no place to create
community here.”
Christian participants did not share any difficulties in procuring space on campus for
events or worship and none of the Christian participants was aware of the process of reserving
space on campus.
109

Institutional Support
Many participants discussed institutional support as a crucial factor in their experience as
non-Christian students at WCJU. All participants cited the university’s openness to different
cultures and traditions as providing a sense of welcome and belonging and a space for free
expression. Tracee shared that “in terms of my beliefs and expression of them, it goes back to the
overall environment that [WCJU] tries to create. Whether it’s your sexual orientation or religion
or beliefs, the environment that has been created supports us being different and being able to
feel comfortable sharing our ideas.” For others, direct support for underrepresented religious
groups was more important than the general openness of the university. As Amir shared, “I do
feel that WCJU stands for diversity and supporting minorities of all kinds. And, for us Muslims,
well they supported us financially to get food catered, music, and stuff like that when we needed
it. It is something.” Amir’s reflection subtly points to an ongoing tension at the university.
Students feel that there is support, but also feel that more needs to be done.
Reflecting on an incident of anti-Semitism that took place on campus in 2019, Amy
shared:
The university has obviously been welcoming and it allows us to use a physical space on
campus and, therefore, you can say helps us foster a sense of community. But the
university itself, I don’t really think that they’ve gone out of their way to just be like, we
see you, we hear you, Jewish students. I mean, there’s been a rise in antisemitism and the
university has never…my biggest problem with [WCJU] is that when there have been a
lot of social justice movements going on, rightly, the university presses hard to support
the different communities. But, when it comes to Judaism it’s hard, because we aren’t
recognized as an ethnic group. Like when swastikas were spray-painted on the side of [a
110

building], not once did they talk about it as anti-Semitic or say how it directly affects
Jewish students. It was more like “so hey this is bad” …and that’s it.
Noting that the university has been welcoming and supportive to non-Christian students, Amy
also believed that there is a disconnect between thought and action. She shared that she wanted
to see support beyond available spaces to gather in community and pray; she wanted to see
support for the Jewish community in the same way she observed the campus supporting other
minority groups. Natalie shared a similar sentiment about how the school approached supporting
non-Christian students, in general: “[WCJU] has to make sure everyone feels safe, you know? I
don’t see enough surveys, I don’t see enough emails that are like ‘Hey, we support you. We
support your community.’ Shouldn’t we have that for non-Christians, especially for the non-
Christian groups that suffer?” The general sentiment across participants was a need for more
open support or statements denouncing hateful acts, from the university, when religious groups
are targeted.
Despite the lack of support from the university at an institutional level, participants
shared that they experienced positive changes and witnessed intentional efforts to work towards
greater inclusion of non-Christian students. Oliver shared a sentiment about the possibility of
further change at the university, “[WCJU] like most schools has room to grow. There’s a door
and both sides have to be willing to walk through. We don’t always know who is on the other
side, but we need to open and walk through to meet. If we do that then we can say what we need
and WCJU, or even other schools, can grow to help us.” Ariel believed WCJU was taking the
right approach in reaching out to non-Christian communities: “So when I came in as a transfer
student WCJU brought on their first ever rabbi-in-residence to work in the ministry office. That’s
major. I emailed her right away and said ‘hi, we need to be friendly.’ It was important for me to
111

connect. That’s my community.” Ariel’s feelings of community and representation were echoed
by Violet who shared, “Having a resident rabbi made me feel really supported and feel like
there’s room for Judaism on [a Catholic] campus.” Chris added that having a Rabbi as a
professor and ministry leader on campus came as a pleasant surprise: “I took a religion class that
I thought was going to be about Christianity, so I wouldn’t have been surprised if a priest had
been the professor. We had a rabbi, a rabbi, here at a Jesuit university…and a queer female
rabbi…and I was accepted being neither Christian nor Jewish.” Chris shared that having a non-
Catholic clergy member teach a religion course gave him a greater sense of belonging and
“somehow made religious exploration acceptable.”
Some Muslim-identified participants shared feeling supported by WCJU, but also feeling,
in Amir’s words “upended by members of the community.” While Jewish students on campus
felt that there was greater representation on campus at the time of this study, Muslim students
felt that the Muslim student community was lacking much needed resources to support their
community. Amir shared the struggle of finding an imam to lead Friday Jummah prayer
gatherings:
There’s something that I would like to come back. Inviting an imam to come to the
university or having one formally work with the ministry office, like the rabbi does.
There was one before when my wife was here and he left and then there was a professor
and then I don’t know what happened, but we have no one to lead prayer and it is not
appropriate, for most, to have a student lead. Friday prayer is special.
Amir and Nevan explained that Friday is a sacred day of worship in the Islamic tradition as
dictated in the Qur’an, Islam’s sacred text. Friday is the holiest day of the week for Muslims and
imam’s usually lead prayer and interpret Islamic teachings for those present. Nevan shared that
112

WCJU once had an imam from the external community lead prayer, but that Imam moved away.
A second imam was invited by campus ministry and provided a small stipend, but Nevan shared
that “he just never showed up and we had to tell the campus ministry office. He took their
money. They tried hard to support us by asking a faculty member to lead prayer, an imam that
taught at WCJU and at an Islamic university. He came when he could, but he was too busy, so he
eventually just became on-campus support to us…no more Friday prayers.” While the Muslim
community had not had the support of an imam in some time, Amir and Nevan both shared that
the Muslim student association continued to offer a space for prayer and community-building
even if finding a space was sometimes a struggle and, as Erina pointed out, “even if some of it is
on Zoom during the pandemic.” During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Muslim student community
started to meet again under Erina’s leadership to discuss the group’s direction and future in-
person plans. While Erina indicated that Friday Jummah prayer took place individually, “each
with their own family or at their own masjid,” she also shared that students tried to maintain
community as best as they could in order to support each other.
One student shared how one faculty member’s attempt to provide support to the Muslim
community may have been well-intentioned but led to feelings of hurt and anger for some
members of the community. Nevan reflected on the situation:
We have often felt supported but not supported. And then sort of before COVID
happened…when the month of Ramadan was approaching…there was this faculty
member who wanted to work with us to sponsor this event. It was like this really big sort
of community Ramadan feast. Well, we were excited at the prospect of that at first. I
mean, here was someone willing to support us…and a non-Muslim too. But then, well,
they started saying things about music and playing music and dancing and stuff. For
113

some of us and our faith background this is uncharacteristic, like it’s a hard no. We tried
to talk to them about it, but they were insistent. So then, where is that line for us of
expressing gratitude for being heard on one end and expressing our frustration at not
being heard on the other? We never got to answer that question, because COVID came
along, and everything was canceled. But see, in past years some of our events had been
canceled and maybe this one wouldn’t have because it’s what a faculty member wanted
and supported. I don’t know. I think we’ve lost so many members because of what we
don’t have.
For Nevan, the situation demonstrated a lack of understanding of Islam and one of its holiest
observances but also the tension between receiving support and having to question or reject the
support provided. Nevan also indicated that some students’ frustration led to them leaving the
group. Ariel expressed feeling the same tension: “I mean to allow me to create a new student org
focused on religion and the LGBTQIA community in my first semester at WCJU, I think that
shows a certain investment in students being able to create spaces for community. But, on the
other hand, there needs to be education and a willingness to learn what our communities need.”
In other words, support is not only about having the spaces and opportunities to create
community, but also the institution’s willingness to learn from the different communities of non-
Christian students.
Christian participants did not report a lack of institutional support for religiously based
events. Luke and John shared that they met some resistance from campus ministry while
attempting to launch a Catholic prayer group. They were told that the group needed to be
inclusive and welcoming of everyone. John shared, “After a compromise to say, ‘all are
welcome,’ we resolved it and launched.” Cyrus also said that he felt that his denomination is
114

supported by the university and shared that a clergy member from a local Orthodox church was
considered part of the affiliated-ministry branch of campus ministry.
The interview data suggests that students’ experience at WJCU was influenced by their
interactions and relationships within the campus community, which was influenced by their
access to campus spaces and institutional support. Participants shared that WJCU was a
welcoming and inclusive environment that had the potential to improve its support of the non-
Christian student community. Evidenced by the data, the institution created a small, dedicated
space for multifaith use, but had not remained consistent in its support of different faith
constituencies on campus. Participants communicated that there existed a lack of understanding
of non-Christian religious traditions and belief systems that contributed to the lack of consistency
in institutional support for on campus faith groups and their space or worship needs.
Research Question 5: How Are Schools Helping Students Develop Various Religious and
Non-religious Identities and the Space and Support for Such Expression?
This question focused on how schools help students develop their religious identities and
expression on campus. Three themes emerged during data analysis: (a) community, (b) academic
programs, and (c) interfaith opportunities. Below is a summary of the experiences articulated by
the participants.
Community
One aspect that all non-Christian participants noted as being important to their experience
as non-Christian students at a Jesuit university was community. Marina, who identified as
somewhere between atheist and questioning offered the following reflection:
I think a lot of religions, if not all, are based on community. If you have that community
then there is like automatic support. If you’re just on your own then, maybe not so much.
115

So, for me, without a religion I don’t have a built-in community, so I have to find it or
join ones that are already there. WCJU does a good job of offering a lot and also
everyone is open. I’ve met community through classes, but also my major, my minor, the
Arab student union, the Muslim Student Association, the Middle Eastern and North
Africa club, the residence halls, and the Jesuit Scholar Institute. I’ve also seen how
Muslim and Jewish students have solid communities here and, I guess you can say I’ve
been welcomed by those communities too.
Marina reflected on how being a member of a religious group creates automatic community, but
also reflected on the openness of different groups on campus in welcoming her in as a member of
those communities. Marina’s experience was also reflected in Emily’s experience of relating to
different students from different traditions because of the culture that WCJU tried to maintain.
Emily stated:
I shared a room my first year with two girls from different religions. We found a lot of
commonalities and could relate to each other through that, even though we practice
different religions and are completely different people. I think [WCJU] is so open about
letting you be you and is accepting and welcoming that it makes it easier to relate to each
other, different religions and what not, because it is ingrained in the culture here. It is
WCJU’s identity, so I guess we have the freedom to be more accepting, maybe even
curious about different religions and cultures too.
A common thread among all participants was an understanding of WCJU’s mission as one that
is accepting, inclusive, and open to providing opportunities for students to build community in
myriad ways. Oliver reflected on his experience as a former Christian who initially believed he
would be ostracized from events held by the campus ministry office:
116

I got involved with ministry sometime in my sophomore or junior year. I thought I would
be shunned because I left behind my parents’ faith. I was wrong. It started with a [social
justice] group and then we all just started checking on each other’s spiritual well-being. It
didn’t matter if someone was Christian, Jewish, Buddhist…we had someone who was
Baha’i…there were a few atheists or wanderers like me. No one cared. We had very
different journeys but respected each other and helped each other. I don’t know if this
would have happened at other Catholic schools.
Oliver’s expectation did not become a reality as he still found a place within activities held by
the campus ministry office, and he noticed a diversity of faith traditions participating in the
social justice group. Most participants in this study, 95%, named social justice as a primary
factor in choosing to attend WCJU and mentioned how the university’s focus on social justice
also drove its focus on diversity.
A few participants not only discussed the importance of community in their overall
experience, but also discussed how community was formed or sustained during the global
pandemic of academic years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021. Jaylyn shared, “Especially since the
pandemic started, I’ve noticed that because we’re separated, [WCJU] has been providing a lot
more opportunities to connect over zoom for meetings and other gatherings. It makes it easier
and harder, but at least we’re still building community.” Amir shared a similar sentiment:
It hasn’t been easy. We had a meeting two weeks ago with the Middle East North Africa
club where we learned about each one of our cultures and languages, because we’re all
from different countries in the area. We had an hour and a half on zoom just talking and
teaching phrases and being in community. It was different, unusual, but fun.
117

Amir’s example showed the university’s attempts to continue building community even in, as
Natalie said, “truly bizarre times.” Alex and Marina both shared that the campus ministry office
and the Jesuit Scholar Institute both held virtual retreats to provide students with an opportunity
to connect with community members on a deeper level, however, Marina shared, “Virtual
anything is just strange. Having a retreat online is strange. But I appreciate that they really tried.”
Participant responses indicated that the university created opportunities in-person and virtually
that aimed to create community and achieve a sense of belonging and inclusion among students.
Academic Programs
One way that non-Christian students felt that Jesuit universities care about their
development and expression is through the available academic programs and course offerings.
WCJU has academic programs in Jewish studies and social justice and Middle Eastern studies
along with a theology and religious studies department that teaches on a wide range of religious
traditions. Amy shared:
I think that the university does a good job of offering theology courses, which are
required, in a diverse range. I’ve had friends take courses on a whole bunch of things,
including Jewish studies. So, it makes it voluntary in a way because no one is forcing you
to learn just about Christianity.
Amy expressed her appreciation in having a selection of courses to choose from in the theology
and religious studies department. Similarly, Ariel shared their surprise and excitement in seeing
their faith tradition represented:
I know [WCJU] has a very robust Jewish studies department. I do think that academia is
an important way that the university expresses what’s important to them and how
welcoming they are to diversity. I mean, I have a lot of non-Jewish friends studying
118

Jewish studies and that’s something I never imagined. People want to take classes in the
program. It’s incredible. I do think it’s a reflection of investing in the diversity of the
community, academically.
Amy and Ariel were not the only participants that articulated an appreciation at either seeing
their traditions represented or having the opportunity to learn about different traditions. Erina
shared that she was enrolled in a course that explored the Qu’ran and she “loved it as I am
learning more and more about my own tradition. The surprise is that it is happening at a Catholic
university, and it is very respectful.” Amir offered a similar reflection when he shared, “WCJU
offers classes about Judaism, about Islam, a course on what Buddhism is, and others that are very
specific, which I appreciate. I can learn more about my faith and others.” Participants felt that the
diversity in courses honored the diversity of traditions and cultures represented at WCJU. All
participants viewed the course offerings and programs in other traditions as a step forward in the
right direction toward helping all students feel included.
More than half of the participants that identified themselves as questioning, wandering, or
spiritual but not religious expressed that the diversity in academic programs provided them with
opportunities to develop their own understanding of religion and spirituality. Chris shared, “The
spark for me was being curious about religion and thinking these classes are here for me to
explore. And then I take a course on religion and the LGBTQIA community and I was like ‘hey,
here’s a train I can ride to an interesting place.’ It’s a different encounter with religion and
WCJU is providing that. Maybe I’ll figure it out here.” Chris shared that in his exploration of
religions and spirituality he had been searching for practices that were inclusive and welcoming.
He did not feel that he would find that at WCJU but credits the university and the course for
giving him a different perspective on religion. Oliver expressed a similar feeling, adding, “So, I
119

wanted to take a Catholic-focused theology course to satisfy core requirements. I thought it
would be easy. Unfortunately, none of the courses fit my schedule so I took one on Buddhism. I
loved it. It helped me discover something new and to ask more questions about what I believe.”
Chris and Oliver both found courses that helped them to explore their beliefs and to continue to
develop their personal spiritualities.
Other participants shared similar experience, but Jaylyn shared one aspect that was
unique to her experience. Jaylyn shared, “There is definitely space for me to explore and develop
in my spirituality. I’ve learned about different religions and [spiritualities] in my classes. I even
took a history class where there was an acknowledgment of the complicated history of the
Catholic Church with different cultures and religions. You don’t see that everywhere, so that
made me more respectful of the university.” Jaylyn’s mention of the complicated history of the
Catholic Church was the only instance where one of the participants alluded to the relationship
of the Church with other traditions. Her example, however, is an example of embeddedness of
Christian privilege in the lives of non-Christian students in that the university’s
acknowledgement of Christianity’s history came as a surprise and elicited respect for the
university.
Interfaith Opportunities
Another aspect that participants mentioned as being helpful to their faith development
and expression were the interfaith opportunities that WCJU provided. Participants spoke of
interfaith services and events where two or more traditions gathered together in solidarity to
support social and environmental justice issues. Luke, a Catholic, shared that he attended
interfaith services “to have a shared experience of prayer” and to “support the diversity of
120

beautiful traditions on campus.” Marina expressed that religious groups partnering together on
important issues is something that she valued and saw in different ways at WCJU:
We have the Jewish studies program, and they have lots of amazing events and
sometimes they are on their own. Occasionally, they explore some intersection between
Judaism and social justice. One time there was a Catholic perspective in one of the
Jewish social justice events. I appreciated that. We can see lots of common ground.
Several participants expressed a desire for more dialogue beyond individual events. Alex shared
that they would like to see a series of events or more opportunities to learn about different
religions and spiritualities outside of the classroom:
So, I helped plan the recent virtual environmental justice Passover seder. We made a
Jewish event highly interfaith. We had speakers who were Catholic, other Christians,
Muslim, Baha’i, Hindu, and obviously Jewish. We had a priest, a rabbi, and someone
from the Buddhist center speak. But that was one event. I attended Sukkot in 2018 and it
was also interfaith each night. Great, but what else? There once was a conversation on
mental health from the interfaith community and I learned so much, but then what?
Nothing. I love that we are dialoguing, but there has to be more. Each time we come
together it helps and leads to greater openness.
Alex’s experience of feeling that the university provided interfaith opportunities but fell short of
fully integrating an interfaith rich experience at the university, was a sentiment shared by several
students and sheds light on the ongoing growth opportunities that Jesuit universities face as their
student bodies become increasingly multifaith. Chris shared that part of the interfaith experience
at WCJU was about making amends between traditions in that some, especially Christianity,
have historically marginalized or oppressed others. He shared,
121

The question is how do these institutions that have historically oppressed or hurt groups
of people…how do they make amends and reach out and integrate other groups while
recognizing that their individuality is important? I think we try with the interfaith
services…different people, different prayers…it can be powerful. I think the
conversations between traditions that are held on campus are also good. It isn’t perfect,
but it’s trying and there is credit to give to that. I feel comfortable being who I am
because the university makes efforts. Yeah, I’m not Christian but I can talk about that.
Through his reflection, Chris articulated how the current efforts at the university made him
comfortable in his identity as a non-Christian. He also articulated a need for interfaith dialogue to
continue, beginning with groups reaching out to each other to have conversations about historical
relationships and for some groups to make amends for their complicity in structures of
oppression.
The interview data suggests that participants found support through their experience of
community on campus. Participants shared their experiences either with religious and faith
communities on campus or with peers that were open to different traditions and belief systems.
For some, groups on campus provided support during the Covid-19 pandemic. Others found
support for their various intersectionalities within different groups and communities on campus.
Some participants expressed coming together to exercise their tradition amid fellow practitioners,
while non-religiously affiliated participants expressed a general openness on campus towards
exploration of faith and other identities. Additionally, students from several religious traditions
felt a sense of inclusion in seeing aspects of their faith traditions represented in various academic
departments. For LGBTQIA+ students of faith, programs and courses that embraced their
intersectionalities and questions provided a sense of belonging and inclusion. Participants also
122

acknowledged institutional efforts around interfaith dialogue and communal experiences of
prayer as means of support and welcome on campus.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the study findings organized by research question.
Overall, the 20 participants were able to provide unique insights into the experiences and
challenges faced by non-Christian students at a Jesuit Catholic university. For each research
question, themes emerged during the analysis of interview data that speak to participants’ overall
perceptions of Christian privilege, their experiences at a Jesuit Catholic university, and steps
taken by the institution to create a welcoming environment where students felt a sense of
belonging and inclusion. Based on the findings the themes identified were the following: (a)
hegemony and normalization; (b) discrimination; (c) silence; (d) religious holidays and
observances; (e) Christian symbolism; (f) campus spaces; (g) institutional support; (h)
community; (i) academic programs; and (j) interfaith opportunities.
Data findings indicate that participants’ lives, and identities as non-Christian students are
shaped by their recognition and experience living in a society where Christianity is held as the
dominant faith tradition. Participants’ experience as non-Christian students on a Jesuit Catholic
campus is shaped both by the openness of the campus community and how closely the
institution’s policies and actions towards non-Christian students are aligned with its mission and
focus on being an inclusive campus community.
Chapter Five will discuss notable findings, implications for practice, offer
recommendations, and discuss areas of future research.

123

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter offers a summary of the findings in relation to the review of literature, found
in Chapter Two and the Ecological Systems Theory and Diverse Learning Environments Theory
frameworks. Four major findings were reflected in the literature: (a) the influence of Christian
privilege on non-Christian students; (b) the contributions of campus climate on non-Christians’
exercise of religiosity or spirituality; (c) community; and (d) authentic dialogue. Following a
reviewing of relevant literature related to the findings, recommendations for practice and future
research are made. A summary of the purpose of the study, research questions, and methodology
follows.
Purpose of the Study, Research Questions, and Methodology
The purpose of this study was to engage in an examination of the influence of Christian
privilege on the sense of belonging and inclusion of non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic
universities. Participants’ experiences were examined through the lens of the Ecological Systems
Theory (EST) and the Enacting Diverse Learning Environments Model (DLE). All participants
engaged in a semi structured online interview of no longer than 90 minutes. The questions
guiding this study are as follows:
1. How is Christian privilege perceived by non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated
students?
2. What role does Christian privilege play in the lives of non-Christian and non-
religiously affiliated students at Jesuit Catholic universities?
3. To what extent does Christian privilege shape the sense of belonging and inclusion of
non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students?
124

4. What challenges do non-Christian and non-religiously affiliated students face in
finding opportunities to exercise their beliefs on-campus?
5. How are schools helping students develop various religious and non-religious
identities and the space and support for such expression?
Findings
Four overarching themes emerged from the literature that aligned with the findings of this
study. These themes are related to students’ understanding of and encounters with Christian
privilege, the campus climate, relationships, and authentic dialogue about religion and
spirituality.
The Influence of Christian Privilege
EST contends that individuals create the environments in which they live and are
reciprocally influenced by those environments. Each of the participants in this study brought
their values, belief systems, and outside experiences to the university. Bronfenbrenner (1979)
posited that individuals’ microsystems, their most immediate environment, includes the
encounter between a person and that environment and the perception of that encounter. For each
of the participants, their religious traditions or belief systems form part of their microsystem as
those institutions or groups had a direct influence on aspects of their development. Participants in
this study reflected the findings in the literature on Christian privilege. Whether non-Christian or
Christian, participants’ understanding, and experience of Christian privilege was viewed as
having a detrimental impact on those from traditions outside of Christianity. Non-Christian and
Christian participants perceived U.S. society as one where Christianity is hegemonic and
normative with attached benefits and freedoms. The literature aligned with this finding as several
studies described the normalization of Christianity as bestowing conscious or unconscious
125

benefits to its practitioners that are unavailable to non-Christians (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014;
Blumenfeld & Jaekel, 2012; Clark et al., 2002; Fairchild, 2009; Joshi, 2020; Schlosser, 2003;
Seifert, 2007) and the embeddedness of Christianity in society, which normalizes Christianity as
the dominant tradition disempowers other groups (Blumenfeld, 2006).
Research suggests that Christian privilege can lead non-Christian students to suppress
their religious or spiritual identities in higher education (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Blumenfeld,
2020; Siefert, 2007). Furthermore, Ferber (2012) offers that the Christonormativity of an
environment marginalizes minority communities and reinforces Christian norms. Non-Christian
participants shared feeling expectations of conformity to Christianity’s dominance and
acceptance at having their traditions held in comparison to Christianity. These participants
expressed feeling discriminated against, undervalued, and silenced in society and at the
university. Schlosser (2003) found that Christian privilege leads non-Christians to feel
undervalued and to feelings of discrimination, prejudice, and unworthiness. A study by
Blumenfeld and Jaekel (2012) further supports this study’s findings as it found that the Christian
majority within an educational institution believed that non-Christian and non-religious people
have the responsibility to accept and conform to a society that views all traditions and beliefs
through the dominant group. Several participants shared that they have maintained silence in the
classroom when there is an expectation of existing Christian knowledge. Likewise, a few
participants reflected on maintaining silence about their religious tradition or belief system
because of being seen as an outsider. This aligned with the literature as Blumenfeld (2020) found
that Christian privilege can have serious effects on the sense of self and identity development of
students as they may begin to internalize feelings of inferiority and otherness.

126

Influence of Campus Climate on Non-Christians’ Exercise of Religion or Spirituality
In Hurtado et al.’s (1999) DLE model, the dimension of historical legacy of inclusion or
exclusion, originally crafted regarding racial and ethnic diversity, examines institutional mission,
policies, and resistance to inclusion. In the EST model, the exosystem is composed of those
factors that, while the individual is not actively involved, affect the individual (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). This includes a university’s policies or decisions. Nearly 63% of non-Christian
participants experienced challenges in obtaining time off for religious holidays or observances.
Participants indicated feeling frustrated at having to prove their religion or the need for an
unexcused absence. Some students reported having to speak to multiple people to obtain a
decision one way or another. Participants also shared experiencing or being made aware of the
difficult choice between attending religious observances or attending milestone events at the
university, such as commencement. The literature affirmed participants’ experience with
institutional policies that impact their freedom to exercise their religious traditions freely.
Schlosser and Sedlacek (2001) found that non-Christian students must often navigate around
conflicts that emerge between the academic environment and their religious practice, which
includes the need to prove their identification with a religious group to observe holy days or
other observances. At times, they may be asked to verify or prove to an authority figure that their
absences are associated with a religious holiday, observance, or spiritual practice (Schlosser &
Saedlack, 2001). All non-Christian and Christian participants observed that Christian holidays
are built-in to the academic calendar while the holidays of other traditions are rarely if not
recognized. This finding supports the research literature which described federal and state
holidays as being mostly aligned with Christian holidays (Ahmadi & Cole, 2014; Clark et al.,
2002, Seifert, 2007). Participants’ experiences also affirmed Ahmadi and Cole’s (2014) findings
127

that institutional type and religious affiliation influence the degree to which institutional
practices are implemented and supported. Jesuit Catholic universities, as participants pointed out,
favor Christian holidays, and embed them as part of the standard academic calendar which leads
to the exclusion of other traditions and incites feeling of exclusion in non-Christian students. A
study by Weller et al. (2011) found that students that faced challenges in celebrating religious
holidays or observances felt excluded and unwelcome at their institutions.
Milem et al. (2005) added an additional dimension to the DLE model. The dimension
examines how institutional organization and structure benefit groups on campus. This dimension
is reflected in the curriculum, decision-making, administration of the university, peer groups and
student organizations on campus. All participants indicated that the inclusive nature of WCJU
was reflected in its academic offerings. Muslim and Jewish participants appreciated the diversity
of course offerings focused on their respective traditions, while students that identified as
spiritual appreciated a breadth of courses focusing on various religions and spiritualities. Of the
participants, 88% of non-Christian and 100% of Christian participants also indicated that courses
and student organizations that explored the intersection of LGBTQIA+ identity and religion
created a welcoming and more inclusive campus. Findings also indicated disparities in the use of
campus spaces as evidenced through the easy access available for Christian and Jewish students
and the struggle experienced by Muslim students. All Jewish participants indicated feeling
supported in their faith and spiritual development due to having a dedicated space and, therefore,
the ability to gather with other Jewish students and participate in certain celebrations, such as
Shabbat. This affirmed findings by Astin et al. (2010, 2011) which found that student
engagement with their faith communities led to positive spiritual and religious development. Due
to a lack of access to spaces for prayer, worship, or gatherings, all Muslim students in this study
128

indicated feeling devalued, not recognized by the institution, and forced to navigate institutional
structures to practice aspects of their faith or spiritual traditions. The research indicates that the
discomfort felt by non-Christians at an institution often stems from a lack of awareness of both
Christian hegemony and a lack of knowledge about other traditions and their needs (Clark,
2003). The study aligned with the research in that 80% of participants cited a lack of awareness
about the needs of non-Christian students regarding their religious or spiritual traditions.
Community Is Crucial to Student’s Sense of Belonging and Inclusion
The mesosystem of EST refers to the influence that various interconnections have on the
individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). As a student moves into the collegiate environment, they
become exposed to other individuals, each with their own microsystem. The personal
connections formed with other students, professors, and other members of the university
community contribute to an individual’s ecological environment. DLE refers to these interactions
as part of the behavioral dimension, which includes peer group interactions, the ability to engage
in activities related to an individual’s religion or belief system, and how individuals may modify
their behavior in response to how they are treated on campus (Hurtado et al., 1998). Vaccaro and
Newman (2016) found that minoritized students find meaning in and through relationships where
they can be authentic. In the United Kingdom, Tobbell et al. (2021) found that students perceived
a more inclusive learning environment when they could engage in interpersonal relationships on
campus. All participants, regardless of religious or spiritual affiliation or non-affiliation, named
community as an important factor in their collegiate experience. Participants reflected on the
presence of various religious and cultural groups on campus and how that presence created an
environment of welcome, belonging, and inclusion. They also reflected on how they felt that
students’ openness to differences reflected the university’s acceptance and openness to diversity
129

and inclusion in its various forms. Therefore, participants felt that the university provided
opportunities to build community and enrich their experience. Astin (1975) found that students
experience an ease of belonging when they can identify with groups on campus. Both Jewish and
Muslim students indicated feeling comfortable in seeing themselves reflected in religious student
groups, in which they could participate, while Jewish students also expressed feeling reassured
through the presence of a rabbi on campus as a prominent member of campus ministry. Several
(2010) studies confirmed that psychological well-being is found through the positive
relationships between the student and the opportunities available at the university to engage with
other peers, faculty (Bowman, 2010), and student organizations (Kilgo et al., 2016).
Muslim students expressed feeling both included and excluded by the university
community. On one end, all Muslim students believed that the campus provided opportunities to
learn about their faith tradition and openly allowed them to hold prayer services and events.
However, students expressed feeling unsupported by the community in finding long-term spaces
to pray and hold events and in helping them to connect with an imam for Jummah prayer and
special observances. All Muslim participants shared feelings of disappointment and exclusion.
They also indicated feeling the need to stay silent when spaces were taken away at the last
minute and feeling invisible when it came to their need for more institutional support. A study by
Stevenson (2014) confirmed that a lack of institutional support towards religious communities on
campus can lead to feelings of isolation, exclusion, and being silenced. The same study found
that institutional failure could lead to students leaving the university. While students in this study
did not indicate a desire to leave the university, some members of the Muslim student group left
the group due to the lack of institutional support regarding Ramadan and Jummah prayer. An
earlier study by Stevenson (2013) also found that an institution’s commitment to diversity and
130

equality does not equate to students feeling seen and supported by the institution. He referred to
it as the paradox of being seen and unseen as different. Out of all the participants of this study,
71% indicated that as diverse as the campus was, they felt that there was a disconnect during
instances of anti-Semitism and other religious prejudice on campus. These participants cited a
lack of public acknowledgement, by the institution, of how the incidents affected different
groups on campus. This finding was affirmed by studies which cited students’ feelings of
institutional failure when their traditions are not legitimized by the university (Stevenson, 2014),
when they are not acknowledged or defended by the university (Stevenson, 2013), or when their
traditions are marginalized and excluded (Stevenson, 2014). Participants’ feelings of visibility
and invisibility led to feelings of inclusion and exclusion, which also led to feeling a sense of
belonging in some areas but not in others. The research literature indicated that fluctuations in
sense of belonging result when students experience both positive and negative interactions with
inclusion and exclusion at an institution (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019; Walton & Cohen, 2007).
Need for More Authentic Dialogue With Non-Christian Traditions
The exosystem of EST refers to the cultural context in which the individual belongs.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) explained that this system includes the belief systems and values that
form part of the individual’s experience. For university students at Jesuit Catholic universities,
the exosystem is experienced within the external and internal domains of DLE and Milem et al.’s
(2005) fifth dimension of DLE, which explores organizational structure. Interreligious dialogue
forms part of the cultural and institutional contexts with which students engage with each other
and the institution. All students expressed an appreciation for opportunities to engage with
traditions different that their own, an appreciation for the variety of courses on religions and
spiritualities, and interfaith opportunities on campus. The six participants that did not identify
131

with a religious tradition, but who considered themselves as searching, felt that the institution
granted them ample opportunities to increase their knowledge of various traditions while also
aiding them on their journeys. One participant expressed gratitude at the opportunity to explore
his spirituality. Nearly all participants, 95%, shared that they also appreciated opportunities that
allowed students of all faith traditions or belief systems to come together in prayer or reflection.
Half of this study’s non-Christian participants indicated a desire for more authentic and proactive
interfaith opportunities while all participants shared at least one interfaith event they had
attended or knew had taken place on campus. All non-Christian participants vocalized a need for
more dialogue as they felt that the interfaith offerings were a step in the right direction but were
mostly individual events without opportunities for further dialogue and interaction. One
participant shared a desire for the Jesuits to recognize past and current wrongs perpetuated by the
Catholic Church. Findings were confirmed through relevant literature which indicated that
opportunities to participate in diverse activities aids students in embracing various perspectives
and more ecumenical worldviews (Astin et al., 2010, 2011; Rockenbach & Mayhew, 2014;
Small & Bowman, 2013), while exposure to diversity in faith traditions or spiritualities along
with the opportunities to explore and dialogue can lead to positive religious or spiritual
development (Astin et al., 2010, 2011; Parks 2000).
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendations for practice are aligned with both the findings of this study and the
relevant literature. Kotter’s Eight Steps of Change Model (2012) is used to as the framework for
implementation of each recommendation. Kotter’s model (Figure 4) seeks to address challenges
in effecting organizational change through a process that navigates organizational status quo and
transformation (Kotter, 2012). Each step allows for engagement with the change process by
132

members of the community across the institution. The goal of the framework is to influence
ongoing changed at an institution and to engage all relevant stakeholders and constituencies in
the process.

133

Figure 4
Eights Steps of Change Model

Note. Adapted from 8 steps to accelerate change in your organization [eBook] by J.P. Kotter,
2018, p. 9 (https://www.kotterinc.com/research-and-insights/8-steps-accelerating-change-ebook-
2020/). Copyright 2018 by Kotter, Inc.

The first step in Kotter’s model is to create a sense of urgency. Kotter (2012) refers to
this step as a move away from complacency to empowering a group to move towards action. The
goal is to help members of the organization understand that change is necessary. Building a
134

guiding coalition, the second step, calls for the identification of trusted and influential members
of the organization who are invested in effecting change and effective in building trust among
other members of the organization. The third step calls for the formation of a strategic vision and
related initiatives where leaders “[define] strategic initiatives as targeted and coordinated
activities that, if designed and executed fast enough and well enough, will make [a] vision a
reality” (Kotter, 2018). Wheeler and Holmes (2017) describe this step as the opportunity to share
a vision for the organization that leverages the strength of a team. Large-scale change is
facilitated by the support of more than a few members of the organization. The fourth step
expands the idea of a guiding coalition by enlisting what Kotter (2018) refers to as a “volunteer
army” (p. 19). This group is composed of a significant number of employees that are enthusiastic
and motivated to step up and act on the initiatives that form the transformational strategy (Kotter,
2018). Once members of the organization choose to participate in the transformation process, the
next step calls for the removal of barriers that could halt change. This includes any
“bureaucratic” processes, “silos, parochialism, pressure to hit numbers, complacency, legacy
rules or procedures, and limited access to key stakeholders and leaders” (Kotter, 2018, p. 24). As
barriers are removed, transformation is possible and can take place in minor or major ways.
The sixth step generates and celebrates short-term wins that occur during the change process.
Short-term wins can take the form of an improved process, a lesson learned, or a meaningful
change for members of the community (Kotter, 2018). These short-term wins, either visible or
invisible, not only bring the organization one step closer to transformation but also validate the
change and communicates to the community that change is happening. Short-term wins can
motivate members of the organization and highlight the progress of team members (Wheeler &
Holmes, 2017). After some initial success, it becomes necessary to sustain acceleration. This
135

seventh step builds on the momentum from short-term wins to fuel the ongoing change by
examining any opposition to the vision, recruiting additional “volunteer army” members, and
bolstering team efforts and institutional mission. The danger in a drop of urgency or momentum
is to lose sight of the overall goal and risk returning to complacency (Kotter, 2018). The final
step is to institute change in the organization. Instituting change may take some time and the goal
of this step is to ensure long-term change. Kotter (2012, 2018) suggests anchoring the change as
part of the organizational culture so that members of the organization can connect new behaviors
or changes with better outcomes or performance and sustain the change into the future.
The recommendations that follow require a shift in existing institutional policies,
procedures, and initiatives.
Recommendation 1: Inclusion of Religion and Spirituality in Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI) Education and Initiatives
Relevant literature indicates that diversity in higher education can lead to positive
outcomes for students and the institution. Institutions that foster and support religious and
spiritual diversity are perceived to be more welcoming (Fosnacht & Broderick, 2017), while
students that are exposed to diverse environments experience a positive sense of belonging and
inclusion along with developing more diverse and ecumenical worldviews (Rockenbach &
Mayhew, 2014). All participants cited WCJU’s inclusive and diverse campus community as
factors in their decision to attend the institution. Nearly all participants, at 95% of both Christian
and non-Christian, referred to the university as focused solely on racial, ethnic, gender, and
sexual diversity without mention of religious and spiritual diversity. The formal recognition of
religion and spirituality in wider DEI initiatives would help to educate the university and its
community on religion and spirituality as aspects of identity and culture and, for some traditions,
136

ethnicity (Hailu et al., 2018; Rockenbach et al., 2020). The inclusion of religion and spirituality
in institutional DEI efforts can also educate the community about Christian privilege, its
influence on the community and in wider society, and its intersections with other existing forms
of privilege, such as white and male privilege. Religion and spirituality should be included in all
DEI efforts including workshops, presentations, marketing materials, internal and external
messaging, the university website, and in the university’s overall DEI efforts at all its campuses
and in its work with community partners.
Findings of this study along with relevant research creates the sense of urgency needed to
begin addressing the problem. DEI professionals at the institution, members of the leadership
team, members of the Jesuit community, and the campus ministry office would serve as the
guiding coalition that will strategize how best to merge religion and spirituality with existing
DEI efforts, outreach to faculty and staff members, and commit to the initiative. The institution
should then communicate to the wider community about changes in its approach to DEI work.
Communication should include an overview of the change, expound on how this change will
serve both students and the wider community, and connect the change to the institution’s Jesuit
and Catholic mission. With an appeal to mind and heart, the university should communicate how
this change will contribute to the overall sense of belonging and inclusion of non-Christian
students. In doing so, the university will appeal to faculty, staff, and students to support and
become campus ambassadors for the initiative. It is imperative that this initiative not only have
the support of community members, but that it is unmet by institutional barriers or challenges
that may derail its implementation. For the institution, it will be necessary to ensure that
departments and offices work together to drive the initiative forward within their respective
divisions and departments and throughout the community. Short term wins could look like
137

increased collaboration within departments and with other departments, inquiries about
scheduling DEI workshops on religious and spiritual diversity, increased DEI website views, or
students communicating being seen, heard, and respected regarding their religion or spirituality.
These wins should serve as data that the ongoing transformation is on track or needs
modification.
Once religion and spirituality are included in the institution’s DEI initiatives, the
university should commit to including religion and spirituality in all DEI efforts moving forward.
This includes proactive efforts to learn about the ongoing experience of non-Christian students
on campus, respond to incidents of religious intolerance or prejudice on campus, offer support to
all non-Christian members of the community, and work closely with different offices and
departments to understand how new policies, procedures, or initiatives will contribute to the
experience of non-Christian students and non-Christian faculty and staff. Table 4 includes an
overview of the recommendation’s implementation using Kotter’s Eight Steps of Change model.

Table 4
Eights Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 1
Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 1
Step 1: Create a sense of urgency Express need for action to support non-
Christian students that aligns with the
university’s mission and values of
welcome and inclusion.

Reach out to non-Christian student, faculty,
and staff community and actively listen to
their experiences and need for support from
the university.

138

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 1
Reach out to the Jesuit community to
advocate for inclusion of religion and
spirituality in DEI efforts as a matter of
social justice and cura personalis.
Step 2: Build a guiding coalition Identity existing and new key campus leaders
and staff that share the urgency for action
and who are invested in broadening DEI
efforts.

Encourage guiding coalition to collaborate to
ensure that all voices are heard, and
perspectives recognized.

Build a relationship of trust between team
members.
Step 3: Form a strategic vision and initiatives Strategize how best to incorporate religious
and spirituality in DEI efforts.

Incorporate and address feedback from
campus community that was obtained
during active listening sessions.

Create a vision for what a future with
broadened DEI efforts will look like.

Ensure that vision for moving forward
appeals to and meets the needs of
stakeholders.
139

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 1
Step 4: Enlist a volunteer army Establish a communications plan to
communicate changes to the wider
community: internal and external
communication related to DEI efforts,
religion and spirituality, student sense of
belonging and inclusion, alignment with
Jesuit and Catholic mission and values.

Provide opportunities for feedback from
community members as part of the overall
communication plan.

Outreach to faculty, staff, and students to
support the initiative widely on campus.

Step 5: Enable action by removing barriers Address existing barriers: fear of losing
Catholic identity, placing greater
importance on some DEI efforts and not
others, aversion to conversation on religion
and spirituality from some factions on
campus.

Identify additional barriers and work toward
education, collaboration, and
understanding between parties.

Step 6: Generate short-term wins Communicate initial wins to community and
celebrate progress made.

Leverage short-term victories to continue
implementing broader DEI efforts.

Make efforts to also celebrate less visible
victories or team contributions.

140

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 1
Step 7: Sustain acceleration Continue to dialogue with the campus
community about religion and spirituality
as critical to DEI work.

Address current events related to religion and
spirituality with the campus when
necessary (i.e., matters of related to
injustice, prejudice, advancements, etc.).

Step 8: Institute change Communicate the change as the way the
university will move forward.

Continue to support the implementation and
development of new programs related to
religion and spirituality in the university’s
DEI work.

Recommendation 2: Develop a Comprehensive Religious and Spiritual Observance
Accommodations Policy
This recommendation is linked to the institutional mission and its focus on social justice
by addressing the need for a comprehensive institutional policy that is respectful of non-
Christian traditions and observances. Non-Christian participants expressed facing challenges in
obtaining excused time off for religious or spiritual observances. These challenges left
participants feeling excluded and disrespected at the institution. The development of a
comprehensive religious and spiritual observance accommodations policy would include
• the ability to take time off to celebrate religious/spiritual holidays or observances without
penalties
• alternative testing options and class makeups (if available)
141

• support for dietary needs with special attention to fasting observances
• spaces for prayer, worship, and gatherings
• institutional support for religious and spiritual organizations on campus
Participants described several challenges and hurdles in obtaining class days off for holidays or
observances. In one case, a student had to speak to several people to obtain permission. In other
cases, students were offered unexcused time off even after informing instructors in advance.
Students reported having to validate their need for time off or feeling as if they had to choose
between academics and observing their faith tradition. Providing non-Christian students with the
opportunity to celebrate religious holidays or observances without penalty requires significant
changes in current academic policies but would create a more inclusive and equitable
environment for non-Christian students. With excused days for religious and spiritual holidays
and observances, students would also be granted the opportunity for alternative testing options
and class makeups, if available, through other course sections or the ability to contribute
reflections on the material that was covered during the absence. In this way, the university would
provide students a way to continue to fulfill their academic requirements. Specifically, the
university should explore approaches to alternative testing for students undergoing ritual fasts
during school hours, such as for Islam’s Ramadan or the 19-day fast in the Bahá’í tradition.
These approaches can include proctored evening or early morning exams. Likewise, university
policy should allow for Muslim students to step away for required prayer during class time.
Institutional support is crucial for the well-being of all students, but institutional support
for non-Christians can also bolster their feelings of welcome and belonging (Bryant, 2006). The
institution should commit to supporting the academic, psychological, physical, social, and
spiritual well-being of its students. The university should ensure that food services can provide
142

kosher, halal, and vegetarian food options that meet the needs of students whose traditions
include dietary restrictions. Similarly, ritual fasting for some traditions is a means of connection
with their faith and an observance that forms part of their identity. Some fasting observances,
such as for Ramadan, take place from dawn to dusk. As a result, students may not be able to eat
until after on campus food service ends at the end of the day. Therefore, the university should
provide to-go meals that can be purchased and eaten cold or warmed up later so that students are
ensured a meal when their fast ends each day. The university should also provide support to non-
Christian students and related religious student organizations by prioritizing space needs when
possible, being transparent about concerns surrounding events, and publicly acknowledging
major holidays and observances.
The Kotter model is well-suited to guide this new policy, which would trigger major
shifts in academic and student life policies and procedures. To garner support for this policy, a
sense of urgency would be created through the results of this study, the experiences of students,
and any evidence of past conversations about the lack of institutional policy for religious and
spiritual holidays and observances. At stake is the sense of belonging and inclusion of a growing
non-Christian population of students at Jesuit Catholic universities. The creation of a new policy
will require the support of the institution’s Board of Trustees, which is the governing body of the
institution. Additional support is needed from faculty labor unions as some requirements, such as
alternative testing and proctoring, may violate existing contracts. Members of the guiding
coalition would assist in bridging relationships with those pertinent stakeholders while also
developing strategic actions and initiatives that are easily communicated, necessary, reasonable,
and adaptable (Kotter, 2018). With a university-wide implementation, the university would need
meaningful support not only from the faculty labor unions but also from academic deans and
143

faculty members as they would need to make significant changes to course policies. Barriers and
challenges such as current academic policies and procedures for obtaining excused time off and
policies surrounding the requirements for campus space use would need to be revisited and
reevaluated considering a more inclusive policy. The contributions of this policy implementation
may be seen in short-term successes that would serve as leverage for sustained change that
would result in an increase in sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students.
Table 5 includes an overview of implementation of recommendation two using Kotter’s Eight
Steps of Change model.

Table 5
Eights Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 2
Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 2
Step 1: Create a sense of urgency Express the need for action to support non-
Christian students that aligns with the
university’s mission and values of welcome
and inclusion and communicates the sense
of urgency to a broad group of
stakeholders: provost, president, student life
division, students, faculty, and staff.

Reach out to the non-Christian student,
faculty, and staff community and actively
listen to their experiences in asking for time
off for religious holidays and observances.

Work with the Dean of Students and
academic advising offices to determine how
many time-off requests, related to religious
and spiritual observances and requests for
related alternative testing, were submitted
within a 5-year period.

144

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 2
Reach out to the counseling office to offer
input on religion and spirituality on the
well-being of students on campus.
Step 2: Build a guiding coalition Identify and create an interfaith team of
existing and new key campus leaders and
staff that share the urgency for action and
are invested in creating a comprehensive
religious accommodation policy.

Include campus thought leaders from the
religious studies department, campus
ministry and affiliated interfaith ministries,
DEI office, health services office,
counseling department, food services
department, faculty union, faculty, and
staff.

Encourage collaboration to ensure that all
voices and perspectives are heard and
recognized.

Build relationships of trust between team
members through honest and vulnerable
dialogue about own and student
experiences on campus.
Step 3: Form a strategic vision and initiatives Strategize what the religious accommodation
policy will address by determining needs
and feasibility and determine how to
achieve buy-in from faculty, staff, and their
representative unions.

Create a vision for how the religious
accommodation plan will be instituted
across the university, including its satellite
campuses.

Connect with organizations, such as Interfaith
Youth Core and the local Interfaith
Council, to learn more about how other
institutions have created and implemented
policies in a way that continues to honor the
145

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 2
foundations of the institution and its
constituencies.
Step 4: Enlist a volunteer army Establish a communications plan to
communicate changes to the wider
community: internal and external
communication related to a religious
accommodation plan, religion and
spirituality, students’ sense of belonging
and inclusion, alignment with Jesuit and
Catholic mission and values.

Provide opportunities for feedback from
community members as part of the overall
communications plan. These opportunities
would provide opportunities for members
of different faith traditions to provide
feedback on aspects of traditions’ needs not
covered in the initial communication of the
plan.

Outreach to faculty, staff, and students to
support the initiative widely and achieve
buy-in from different groups on campus.
Step 5: Enable action by removing barriers Dialogue with labor unions to address current
barriers that exist, including but not limited
to limitations on alternative testing
schedule and limitations on the university
hiring testing proctors.

Work in collaboration with academic policy
committee to discuss changes to academic
policies and syllabi and present plan to the
Board of Trustees for consideration,
discussion, and ratification.

Discuss food options and extended food
service hours to address dietary needs for
students from traditions for whom dietary
needs are closely tied to observance.
146

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 2
Step 6: Generate short-term wins Communicate initial wins to community and
celebrate progress made, including stories
from students whose experience was
changed through the implementation of the
new policy.

Leverage short-term victories and make
efforts to also celebrate less visible
victories or team contributions.
Step 7: Sustain acceleration Continue to dialogue with the campus
community about religion and spirituality
and the related needs of all stakeholders on
campus.

Create an inclusive university calendar,
curated by campus ministry, that
acknowledges and celebrates major
religious and spiritual holidays and
observances.

Continue to dialogue with interfaith groups on
campus to revisit original needs and
determine any new needs or modifications
to addresses concerns or gaps.
Step 8: Institute change Communicate the change as the way the
university will move forward and fully
implement a religious accommodation
policy for the university and its satellite
campuses.

Recommendation 3: Strengthen Interfaith Ministry Support Efforts With a Dedicated
Interfaith Support Staff Member and Student Advisory Council
This recommendation aligns with findings which indicated a need for campus ministry to
offer additional support to non-Christian students on campus. This recommendation supports the
multifaith community of Jesuit institutions by creating a dedicated position to serve as a liaison
147

to religious and spiritual groups on campus and an interfaith student advisory council to develop
and support interfaith initiatives on campus. An associate director for interfaith programming
and outreach would support the campus ministry office and the campus community by
interfacing with student religious and spiritual groups on campus, outreaching to different faith
communities on campus, creating dialogue opportunities for faith groups on campus, and
overseeing interfaith events. Additionally, this position would work with different religious and
spiritual communities on campus to offer outside resources and connections to related groups in
the city.
Under the direction of the associate director for interfaith outreach, a multifaith and
multi-tradition advisory council of students would form to develop interfaith programming that
responds to student needs, such as prayer services, film festivals, interfaith week, service
opportunities, and interfaith retreat opportunities. Having a student advisory council representing
several spiritual and religious traditions would help enrich interfaith program offerings at the
institution and better serve the needs of the community through interfaith dialogue and interfaith
work through more than a Christian lens.
As with prior recommendations, Kotter’s (2012) eight steps framework would drive the
implementation process. However, the implementation of this recommendation would be added
as an expansion of the interfaith program area in ministry. The need for a dedicated interfaith
support person and student advisory council emerged from the participants’ experiences shared
as part of this study. To act with urgency, there will need to be a clear understanding of the
current need for a dedicated interfaith support person and an interfaith student advisory council.
According to the administrator interviewed for this study, campus ministry has an associate
director that is split between supporting the interfaith community and supporting the spiritual
148

needs of Catholic students. As a result, according to the staff member, the interfaith program is
reactive rather than proactive and programming is often planned by a fully Catholic staff. As this
would be a departmental implementation, the guiding coalition would be composed of members
of the campus ministry office in collaboration with departments or divisions that oversee
religious student organizations, including the division of student life. Urgency would also need
to be established with the university’s budget office, which approves new university employment
positions and expenditures. The larger scale support would need to come from the student body,
faculty, and staff who desire continued progress in creating a more inclusive and welcoming
environment for all students. As the program is implemented, longer term success would be
sustained through ongoing conversations with students, interfaith partners, and other community
members. Table 6 includes an overview of implementation of the third recommendation using
Kotter’s Eight Steps of Change model.

Table 6
Eights Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 3
Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 3
Step 1: Create a sense of urgency Express the need for a campus ministry senior
staff position to support the needs of the
interfaith community at the university as a
position that aligns with the university’s
focus on creating a welcoming and
multifaith campus environment.

Hold active listening sessions with interfaith
student groups and interfaith ministry
partners about the needs of their
communities.

149

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 3
Outreach to interfaith congregations near
campus to understand how best to support
students from each faith community.

Work with the vice president of finance and
the associate vice president of budget to
determine budget allocation for the new
position. Create a presentation for the
budget committee of the board of trustees,
if necessary, for the establishment of the
new position.

Express the need for a multifaith student
advisory council, to the division of student
life, to develop interfaith programming for
the campus community under the direction
of the associate director for interfaith
programming and outreach.
Step 2: Build a guiding coalition Led by the campus ministry office, identify
and create an interfaith team of existing and
new key campus partners to identify the
needs that that would be addressed by the
new position of associate director of
interfaith programming and outreach.
Step 3: Form a strategic vision and initiatives Create the job description and requirements
for the position of associate director of
interfaith programming and outreach.

Develop a vision for accomplishments of the
associate director for the first three months,
six months, and full academic year, which
includes targeted outreach and support of
the Muslim community.

Collaborate and create a description for the
interfaith student advisory council,
including an application process.

Develop a plan for the goals of the student
advisory council that includes but is not
limited to the planning of interfaith
services, the creation of an interfaith social
150

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 3
justice retreat, the creation of an interfaith
film festival and interfaith week, and
outreach to marginalized religious/spiritual
groups on campus.
Step 4: Enlist a volunteer army Establish a communications plan to
communicate changes to the wider
community: internal and external
communication related to the creation of
the associate director position.

Create a targeted social media outreach plan
for communication of the student advisory
council, including Instagram posts and
Instagram stories.

Present plan for a student advisory council to
the student senate and religious student
organizations to garner support and bring
them onboard to communicate their support
to students.

Provide opportunities for community
members to join the search committee for
the associate director position and the
advisory council.
Step 5: Enable action by removing barriers Dialogue with the offices of budget and
finance to increase the salary budget of
campus ministry.

If necessary, ask the board of trustees for an
increase in base salary budget funding,
which would begin in the fiscal year in
which the hiring of the new associate
director would take place.
Step 6: Generate short-term wins Communicate initial wins, both visible and
invisible, to community and celebrate
progress made, including the hiring of a
new associate director and their vision.

Announce the creation of the interfaith
student advisory council and its first
collaboration.
151

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 3
Leverage short term success for continued
progress in both areas.
Step 7: Sustain acceleration Continue to dialogue with the campus
community about religion and spirituality
and the related needs of all stakeholders on
campus.

Create authentic proactive interfaith
programming that meets the needs of a
multifaith campus.

Continue to solicit student voice through the
student advisory council.
Step 8: Institute change Communicate to the campus community that
campus ministry will move forward with an
expanded focus helping non-Christian
students and the multifaith community to
feel welcomed on campus.

Communicate to the campus community that
the Jesuit and Catholic identity of the
university will only be strengthened by
additional support for the university’s
multifaith community as a matter of social
justice and cura personalis.

Recommendation 4: Develop Educational Resource Material on Different Religions and
Spiritualities for the University Community
Stephen Prothero (2007) surmised that the United States struggles with the problem of
religious illiteracy, which leads to misunderstandings of religious minorities and even hate
crimes. Joshi (2020) found that education on non-Christian faith and spiritual traditions can
mitigate biases, while Edwards (2018) refers to interfaith education as a matter of social justice.
While Jesuit Catholic universities offer courses on Christianity and non-Christian traditions,
152

there remain opportunities to educate the campus community about non-Christian faith traditions
and spiritualities. This recommendation addresses participants’ experiences with a perceived lack
of understanding of their faith or spiritual traditions. Current opportunities to learn about
different faith traditions reside within the departments of Theology and Religious Studies, Social
Science, History, and programs in Judaism and Social Justice and Middle Eastern Studies at
WCJU and similar program at other AJCU universities. Students that do not choose courses in
different traditions may not become familiar with a tradition that is not theirs. Additionally,
faculty and staff members, to best support a diverse campus community, should have access to
resources that will educate them on different traditions and spiritualities. For example, faculty
and staff members would be better positioned to support Muslim students during Ramadan if
they had knowledge about Ramadan’s history, significance, and aspects of its observance. The
institution should develop educational and resource materials that can be shared widely across
the institution. These materials would include digital infographics that can be shared on social
media and digital publications to inform and educate the community about holidays,
observances, rituals, history, and facts about different faith traditions and spiritualities. The
recommendation is in line with the institutional mission to educate in an inclusive manner and is
in line with recommended DEI efforts, in the first recommendation, for an expanded focus on
religion and spirituality as an aspect of diversity.
Using the Kotter (2018) model, the implementation of this recommendation would be in
conjunction with DEI and ministry efforts to expand the dialogue on religion and spirituality as
important factors of identity that need to be recognized, respected, and explored. In creating a
sense of urgency around these educational efforts, the project will be presented as an opportunity
to raise continued diversity awareness around religious and spiritual identity. For this effort, the
153

guiding coalition would be composed of members from the campus ministry office, DEI office,
interfaith partners, the religious studies department, and the office of marketing and
communications. The guiding coalition would create a vision for the development and release of
the educational resources. Working together and ensuring that the material is presented in an
educational and respectful manner, the team will also coordinate outreach to others on campus to
garner support and stir excitement. A communications plan would inform the campus
community about efforts to educate the campus on different religious traditions and spiritualities
and would also solicit feedback and assistance from the community about ways to expand
outreach and education. One barrier to this initiative would be budget availability, which would
need to be discussed and resolved with the budget and finance office. Short term wins, such as
the first related social media post or launch of a related webpage, would be celebrated, and
leveraged to maintain the initiative as an ongoing program from the office of campus ministry.
Table 7 includes an overview of implementation of the fourth recommendation using Kotter’s
Eight Steps of Change model.

Table 7
Eights Steps of Change Implementation for Recommendation 4
Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 4
Step 1: Create a sense of urgency Express the need for greater education about
the different faiths and spiritualities
represented on campus. Align the need to
the university’s mission and values of
inclusion and welcome.

Position initiative as an aspect of DEI
awareness about the identity of the
individual.
154

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 4
Step 2: Build a guiding coalition Assemble a coalition of campus leaders from
the campus ministry office, DEI office,
interfaith partners, the religious studies
department, and the office of marketing and
communications.

Develop a vision for the creation and
distribution of the educational resources on
campus to faculty, staff, and students.

Collaborate with different internal and
external faith communities to ensure that
material is presented in an educational and
respectful manner.

Coordinate outreach to others on campus to
garner support and stir excitement.
Step 3: Form a strategic vision and initiatives Solicit feedback and assistance from the
community, especially from religious
groups on campus, about ways to expand
outreach and education.

Create vision for distribution of educational
resources.
Step 4: Enlist a volunteer army Institute a communications plan that would
inform the university community about
educational resources initiative focused on
different religions and spiritualities.

Create a social media outreach and
distribution plan for education of
community.

Provide opportunities for community
members to join in the creation of resources
and outreach.
Step 5: Enable action by removing barriers Dialogue with the offices of budget and
finance to approve additional marketing
budget for resources.
155

Kotter’s eight steps of change Plan for recommendation 4
Step 6: Generate short-term wins Communicate initial wins, both visible and
invisible, to community and celebrate the
availability of the first resources with a
community announcement.

Leverage short term success for continued
progress.
Step 7: Sustain acceleration Continue to dialogue with the campus
community about religion and spirituality
and the related needs of all stakeholders on
campus.

Continue to create and update resources to
keep information current.
Step 8: Institute change Communicate to the campus community that
campus ministry will move forward with an
expanded focus helping non-Christian
students and the multifaith community to
feel welcomed on campus by educating the
community about non-Christian traditions
as a matter of social justice and a focus on
cura personalis.

Evaluation
The Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model (Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014), a
research-based improvement and accountability focused approach, will be utilized to evaluate the
implementation of recommendations that surfaced from the findings of this study. CIPP is a
comprehensive approach to evaluation that assesses “all stages of program development and all
aspects of a program” to assist in ongoing program development and improvement (Stufflebeam
& Coryn, 2014, p. 238). Utilizing the CIPP model for the evaluation of recommendations
emerging from this study allows for the implementation to be evaluated based on the needs of
156

non-Christian students and the communities within Jesuit Catholic universities. Additionally, the
CIPP model (Figure 5) facilitates the evaluation of projects at any scale, from program changes
to larger initiatives.

Figure 5
Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Evaluation Model

Note. Context, input, process, product (CIPP) evaluation model. Reprinted from Ivan Teh
– RunningMan, by I. Teh, 2015, https://ivanteh-runningman.blogspot.com/2015/03/cipp-
evaluation-model.html. Copyright 2015 by Ivan Teh. Reprinted with permission.

157

The CIPP model evaluates programs in the four core areas of context, input, product, and
process. Context evaluation assesses, the needs, beneficiaries, resources, background and
environment, and the opportunities present. Context evaluation aids in defining goals and setting
priorities while also addressing any needs and problems that emerge (Stufflebeam & Coryn,
2014). Input evaluation focuses on planning by assessing plans, strategy, and available financial
and staffing resources. Process evaluation is outcomes-focused and examines the impact of a
program’s implementation. At this stage, evaluation reports focus on the success of the
program’s implementation, whether it met its initial goals, and any “deficient outcomes”
(Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014) that can be addressed through intervention. Finally, product
evaluation focuses on intended and unintended short-term and long-term outcomes (Stufflebeam
& Coryn, 2014). Product evaluation examines the effectiveness of the program implementation,
the success on the implementation in addressing the original problem or need, and the long-term
sustainability of the implementation.
Table 8 provides an overview of the implementation of the CIPP model for each
recommendation.

Table 8
Implementation of CIPP Model on Recommendations
Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
Inclusion of religion
and spirituality in
diversity, equity,
and inclusion (DEI)
education and
initiatives
Assess need through
examining most recent
campus climate survey,
assessment of DEI
programming over the past
five years to determine how
religion and spirituality
have been or have not been
presented as a DEI topic.

Identify leaders and campus
staff that can lead the
efforts and develop DEI
modules and trainings as
additions to current DEI
curriculum and
programming.

Analyze for feasibility of
creating trainings, online
modules, and a dedicated
webpage for DEI
information on religious
and spiritual identity.
Use of allocated funds,
from the university,
for DEI work.
Additional funding
from campus
ministry.

Examine DEI
initiatives related to
religious and
spiritual identities at
other colleges
universities (public,
private, and
religiously
sponsored)

Contact Interfaith
Youth Core for
resources and grant
possibilities to fund
initiative.
Launch DEI
trainings that
include religious
and spiritual
identities and
launch related
website/modules
to educate
community.

Observe both
student and
faculty/staff
trainings across
campus—interact
with attendees
and take note of
comments, points
of discussion, and
questions that
emerge.

Focus on any gaps
of knowledge
that may emerge
because of
Gather qualitative data
from focus groups and
personal interviews to
determine how DEI
efforts have or have
not changed the
experience for non-
Christian students on
campus.

Gather data from DEI
program participants to
determine if their
perceptions and/or
biases of
religious/spiritual
identities was altered
because of a broader
DEI program.

Gather quantitative data
for participation in live
trainings, website
traffic, modules started
and completed, and
158

Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
missing
information,
incomplete
training of
trainers, or
aspects that had
not come up in
the planning
stage.

Utilize exit
interviews post-
training sessions
to obtain attendee
feedback.

Develop a survey
that is sent three
months after
training to
determine
participant
learning.

inquiries about
additional offerings.

Utilize summative
assessments to
determine
understanding during
the program, including
a pre-training
assessment to
determine prior
knowledge or
conscious and
unconscious bias
regarding religious and
spiritual identities.

Determine if goals and
objectives were met
and determine where,
if any, changes are
necessary.

159

Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
Develop a
comprehensive
religious and
spiritual observance
accommodations
policy
Assess need through
examining records of the
past five years pertaining to
time off requests related to
religious or spiritualities
holidays and observances.

Examine research pertaining
to the detrimental impact of
challenges faced by non-
Christian students related to
time off for religious and/or
spiritual holidays or
observances.

Study the positive
psychological and spiritual
benefits of religious and
spiritual practice on
students.

Utilize health research/data to
examine the impact of
fasting on academic
performance to further
examine the possibilities for
alternative testing
accommodations for
students whose traditions
require ritual fasting.
Examine university
salary budget if
alternative testing
proctors are hired,
food services budget
to implement longer
cafeteria hours
during the month of
Ramadan, food
service budget for
more halal and
kosher food items.

Examine religious
accommodation
policies at other
colleges and
universities (public,
private, and
religiously
sponsored).

Connect with IFYC to
learn about best
practices.

Connect with faculty
and food service
unions to determine
best course forward
Launch religious
accommodation
plan that covers
time off requests,
accommodations
for prayer,
change in food
service hours,
and available
campus spaces
for prayer,
meditation, and
worship.

Observe academic
policies and their
implementation
per department.

Track requests for
time off from
non-Christian
students.

Track the
availability of
alternative testing
or alternative
class attendance
options.
Gather qualitative data
from focus groups and
personal interviews to
determine how the new
religious
accommodation policy
has impacted student
sense of belonging and
inclusion.

Hold listening sessions
with faculty members
to discover if there has
been a detrimental
impact to their
teaching as well as to
discover whether
alternative testing has
improved student
performance.

Gather quantitative data
for participation in live
trainings, website
traffic, modules started
and completed, and
inquiries about
additional offerings.

160

Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
Identify leaders and campus
staff that can lead the
efforts and develop a
comprehensive religious
accommodation policy.

Analyze for feasibility as
pertaining to budget and
contractual negotiations
with faculty and food staff
unions.
to accommodate all
parties involved
without violating
existing or future
contracts.
Focus on any gaps
or misuse of the
accommodation
policy that may
not have been
thought of during
the planning
stage.

Hold active
feedback sessions
with religious
organizations on
campus to
understand how
the policy is or is
not supporting
students.

Utilize summative
assessments to
determine impact to
student body before
and after
implementation:
survey of experience
with lack of religious
accommodation vs.
experience after policy
implementation.

Determine if goals and
objectives were met
and determine where,
if any, changes are
necessary.
161

Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
Strengthen interfaith
ministry support
efforts with a
dedicated interfaith
support staff
member and student
advisory council
Assess need through
examining most recent
campus climate survey, and
assessment of campus
ministry programming, and
analysis of most recent
campus ministry student
and faculty/staff surveys.

Identify leaders and campus
staff that can lead the
efforts and identify what
the campus community
needs in this area.

Communicate with student
organizations about needs
related to interfaith
programming.

Analyze for feasibility of
creating an additional paid
position in campus
ministry.

Determine size and scope of
interfaith student advisory
council.
Campus ministry salary
budget would need to
be increased or
funding would have
to take place through
donor support.

Examine
comprehensive
interfaith programs at
other colleges and
universities (both
religious and secular)
to determine
probable models for
an expanded
program.

Conduct research on
grant funding for
university interfaith
programming
through IFYC, local
interfaith council, or
additional outside
organizations.
Hire new associate
director of
interfaith
programming and
outreach.

Recruit and
assemble
interfaith student
advisory council
through
application and
interview
process.

Observe for
increase or
decrease in
interfaith
programming
participation.

Focus on
programming to
ensure that
various traditions
are represented
and that the
advisory council
is providing a
Gather qualitative data
from focus groups and
personal interviews to
determine how
interfaith programming
has furthered dialogue
between traditions and
provides the campus
community with spaces
to learn and gather in
prayer.

Gather quantitative data
for attendance,
participation as part of
events, and frequency
of attendance and
participation.

Send out surveys to
attendees, using
registration list to
determine success of
program. Questions
will focus on tradition
representation, sense of
welcome, inclusion of
various identities, etc.

162

Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
voice to various
community
members.

Utilize post-
programming
surveys to solicit
feedback on
participant
experience.

Assess new
associate director
for leadership,
progress in
building
relationships with
faith
communities, and
meeting goals
and objectives
every three
months in the
first year and
annually
thereafter.

Determine if goals and
objectives were met
and determine where,
if any, changes are
necessary.
163

Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
Develop educational
resource material on
different religions
and spiritualities for
the university
community
Assess need through
examining how much
education has taken place
on campus, related to non-
Christian traditions, outside
of the religious studies
department in the past five
years.

Examine research pertaining
to the importance of
religious literacy and its
impact on ecumenical
worldviews, inclusion, and
acceptance.

Analyze for feasibility as
pertaining to campus
ministry marketing budget
to develop materials.

Campus ministry or the
general university
base budget would
cover the cost of
materials
development.

Connect with IFYC to
learn about best
practices in widely
educating a campus
community about a
wide range of
traditions.

Connect with religious
organizations on
campus and external
religious
communities in the
city to ensure that
education and digital
material is created in
an accurate and
respectful way.
Create
infographics,
social media
posts, and digital
pamphlets that
educate about the
basic tenets of
different
traditions,
including specific
holidays and
observances that
are celebrated
during the
academic year.

Track requests for
access to
materials.

Track engagement
with related
social media
posts.

Focus on any gaps
or inaccurate
information that
may emerge.

Gather qualitative data
from focus groups and
personal interviews to
determine impact of
education initiative on
community.

Gather quantitative data
for website and social
media traffic, inquiries
about additional
offerings, and
engagement with
digital offerings.

Utilize summative
assessment surveys to
determine impact to
campus community
before and after
implementation:
survey of prior
knowledge of
traditions before
engaging with
educational material
and after.

Determine if goals and
objectives were met
164

Recommendation Context evaluation
(Goals)
Input evaluation
(Plans)
Process evaluation
(Actions)
Product evaluation
(Outcomes)
Hold active
feedback sessions
with religious
organizations on
campus to
understand how
these educational
efforts may have
led to greater
dialogue with
other members of
the community or
if there is
anything missing.
and determine where,
if any, changes are
necessary.

165
166

Future Research
There exists a paucity of scholarly research on the influence of Christian privilege on
non-Christian students as well as on the experience of non-Christian students at Catholic and
Christian universities. This study, along with existing research indicates a need for further study
on the multi-faceted influence of religion and spirituality in U.S. higher education.
Future research on the influence of Christian privilege on the experience of non-Christian
students at Jesuit Catholic universities should address the experience of non-Christian students of
color, the experience of LGBTQIA+ students from non-Christian traditions, and the effects of
Christian privilege on non-Christian students possessing several intersectionalities such as race
and ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability, and citizenship. This study solely focused on the
experience of being a religious or non-religious minority in a Jesuit Catholic environment.
Similar studies should be undertaken at Catholic universities affiliated with other religious orders
and in different regions of the United States.
The COVID-19 global pandemic significantly affected the scope and reach of this study.
An expansion of this study to other universities across the Jesuit network would provide a more
robust understanding of the sense of belonging and inclusion experienced by non-Christian
students at Jesuit universities. This study took place at a single Jesuit university that is
considered among the most progressive in the network with a diverse and mostly non-Christian
population. Additional research at Jesuit or Catholic colleges and universities with a majority
Catholic or Christian study body would yield different results.
Conclusion
This study explored the influence of Christian privilege on the sense of belonging and
inclusion of non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities. Sense of belonging and
167

inclusion is vital to students’ sense of identity (Strayhorn, 2012) and their spiritual and religious
development (Astin et al., 2010). Students at Jesuit Catholic universities are faced with
challenges within campus environments that reflect a Christian majority even when non-
Christians constitute much of the student population. In a community representative of Christian
hegemony, understanding its influence on the non-Christian community within is imperative.
Acknowledging and confronting Christian privilege, according to Edwards (2018), is necessary
within the U.S. system of higher education. The study examined the experiences of students at a
progressive Jesuit Catholic university with a majority non-Catholic and non-Catholic Christian
population.
The findings of this study confirm that the influence of Christian privilege contributes to
feelings of inequity, isolation, exclusion, devaluation, and discouragement in non-Christian
students. Interview participants lauded institutional efforts to create a diverse and inclusive
campus community while also voicing a desire for more institutional support in acknowledging
religion and spirituality as part of DEI initiatives and making significant efforts in supporting
non-Christian students when bias incidents occur on campus. Participants also shared their
struggles related to celebrating holidays and observances that are intricately tied to their faith or
belief system and, ultimately, their identity. All students deserve to feel welcomed, included, and
a sense of belonging during their time in higher education. As with race and ethnicity, spiritual
and religious belief is not only a matter of identity but also a lens through which individuals
develop their worldview. Opportunities to develop in faith and spirituality, to dialogue with other
faith and spiritual traditions, to be in community with like-minded individuals, to freely exercise
a religious or spiritual tradition, and to explore other traditions and belief systems all contribute
to a positive experience for students (Mayhew et al., 2014; Rockenbach et al., 2015; Rockenbach
168

& Mayhew, 2013, 2014). The recommendations in this study provide steps toward creating a
more inclusive and welcoming campus for all members of the community. The hope is that this
study also contributes to understanding the experience of students at religiously affiliated
colleges and universities.

169

References
Ahmadi, S., & Cole, D. G. (2014). Engaging religious minority students. In S.J. Quaye & S.
Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and
practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd edition, pp. 171–185). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810163
Alcoff, L. M. (2007). Epistemologies of ignorance: Three types. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.),
Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 39–57). SUNY Press.
Allen, K. (2016). Achieving interfaith maturity through university interfaith programming in the
United Kingdom. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2331186X.2016.1261578
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (2020). Colleges and universities. Retrieved from
https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. (2010). The Jesuit, Catholic mission of the U.S.
Jesuit colleges and universities. Retrieved from https://www.ajcunet.edu/s/The-
JesuitCatholic-Mission-of-Jesuit-Colleges-and-Universities_PDF.pdf
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. (2013). Some characteristics of Jesuit colleges
and universities: A self-evaluation instrument. Retrieved from https://www.ajcunet.edu/s/
Characteristics-FINAL-Dec-20122.pdf
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
170

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–29. https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/
ace/downloads/astininv.pdf
Astin, A.W. (2004). Why spirituality deserves a central place in liberal education. Liberal
Education, 90(2), 34–41. https://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/newsletters/1/Astin1.pdf
Astin, A.W., Astin, H. A., & Lindholm, J. A. (2010). Cultivating the spirit: How college can
enhance students’ inner lives. Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W., Astin, H.A., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Assessing students’ spiritual and religious
qualities. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/
10.1353/csd.2011.0009
Astin, A.W. & Keen, J.P. (2006). Equanimity and spirituality. Religion & Education, 33(2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2006.10012375
Basham, K. & Hughes, M. (2012). Creating and sustaining interfaith cooperation on Christian
campuses: Tools and challenges. Journal of College and Character, 13(2), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1515/jcc-2012-1900
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and the promotion of “secular” and not-so
“secular” mainline Christianity in public schooling and in the larger society. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 39(2), 195–210, https://10.1080/10665680600788024
171

Blumenfeld, W. J. (2020). Challenging Christian hegemony and Christian privilege in academia.
In R. Papa (Ed.), Handbook on promoting social justice in education (pp. 2387–2416).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_113
Blumenfeld, W. J., & Jaekel, K. (2012). Exploring levels of Christian privilege awareness among
preservice teachers. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-4560.2011.01740.x
Bowman, N. (2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive development: A metaanalysis.
Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654309352495
Bowman, N. A., Brandenberger, J. W., Hill, P. L., & Lapsley, D. K. (2011). The long-term
impact of college diversity experiences: Well-being and social concerns 13 years after
graduation. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 729–739. http://doi.org/
10.1353/csd.2011.0075
Bowman, N. A., & Small, J. L. (2010). Do college students who identify with a privileged
religion experience greater spiritual development? Exploring individual and institutional
dynamics. Research in Higher Education, 51, 595–614. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/
s11162-010-9175-2
Bowman, N. A., & Small, J. L. (2012). Exploring a hidden form of minority status: College
students’ religious affiliation and well-being. Journal of College Student Development,
53, 591–509. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0050
Bowman, N. A., & Smedley, C. T. (2012). The forgotten minority: Examining religious
affiliation and university satisfaction. Higher Education, 65, 745–760. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S10734-012-9574-8
172

Bowman, N. A., Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., Riggers-Piehl, T. A., & Hudson, T. D.
(2016). College students’ appreciative attitudes toward atheists. Research in Higher
Education, 58, 98–118. http://doi.org/ 10.1007/S11162-016-9417-Z
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development. Sage.
Bryant, A. N. (2006). Exploring religious pluralism in higher education: Non-majority religious
perspectives among first-year college students. Religion & Education, 33(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2006.10012364
Bryant, A. N. (2007). Gender differences in spiritual development during the college years. Sex
Roles, 56(11–12), 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11199-007-9240-2
Bryant, A. N., Choi, J. Y., & Yasuno, M. (2003). Understanding the religious and spiritual
dimensions of students’ lives in the first year of college. Journal of Student Development,
44(6), 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0063
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Human coronavirus types. Retrieved
September 10, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/types.html
Chang, M. J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educational impact of a racially diverse
undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 377–395.
173

Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates:
Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45, 529–553.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B%3ARIHE.0000032327.45961.33
Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Saenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of sustaining
crossracial interaction among undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 430–
455. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0018
Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. Jossey-Bass.
Clark, R. T. (2003). Diversity initiatives in higher education: A case study of multicultural
organizational development through the lens of religion, spirituality, faith, and secular
inclusion. Multicultural Education, 10(3), 48–54.
Clark, R. T., Brimhall-Vargas, M., Schlosser, L., & Allmo, C. (2002). Diversity initiatives in
higher education: It’s not just “secret santa” in December: Addressing educational and
workplace climate issues linked to Christian privilege. Multicultural Education, 10(2),
52–57.
Clark, R. T., & Brimhall-Vargas, M. (2003). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Secular
aspects and international implications of Christian privilege. Multicultural Education,
11(1), 55–57.
Codina, G. (1999). Our way of proceeding in education: The ratio studiorum. Educatio S.J., 1,
1–15.
Cole, D. G., & Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of Muslim
students’ experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/
10.1353/jhe.0.0089
174

Craft, C. D. M., Weber, W. M., & Menke, D. J. (2009). Campus ministers in public higher
education: Facilitators of student development. Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 61–80.
Craft, C. M., & Yang, Y. (2019). Classroom climate, academic success, and intent to persist
among non-Christian and Christian undergraduate students. Religion & Education, 46(3),
324–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2018.1519629
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th edition). Sage Publications.
Currie, C. (2013). Pursuing Jesuit, Catholic identity and mission at U.S. Jesuit colleges and
universities. Journal of Catholic Education, 14(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.15365/
joce.1403072013
Dalton, J. & Crosby, P. (2007) Let's talk about religious differences: The neglected topic in
diversity discussions on campus, Journal of College and Character, 9(2),
https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1125
Davidson, J. D. (2008). Religious stratification: Its origins, persistence, and consequences.
Sociology of Religion, 69(4), 371–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/socrel/69.4.371
De Brey, C., Snyder, T.D., Zhang, A., and Dillow, S.A. (2021). Digest of Education Statistics
2019 (NCES 2021-009). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2021/2021009.pdf
Dosen, A. J. (2012). Maintaining ecclesial identity in Christian higher education: Some thoughts
from the Catholic experience. Christian Higher Education, 11(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15363759.2012.624444
Eck, D. L. (2001). On common ground: World religions in America. Columbia University Press.
175

Eck, D. L. (2009). A new religious America: How a “Christian country” has become the world’s
most religiously diverse nation. Harper Collins.
Edwards, S. (2018). Critical reflections on the interfaith movement: A social justice perspective.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/
DHE0000053
Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.). Jum’ah. In Britannica.com encyclopedia. Retrieved July 23,
2021, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/jumah
Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.) Masjid. In Britannica.com encyclopedia. Retrieved July 23, 2021,
from https://www.britannica.com/topic/mosque
Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.) Shabbat. In Britannica.com encyclopedia. Retrieved July 23,
2021, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sabbath-Judaism
Ettekal, A., & Mahoney, J. (2017). Ecological systems theory. In K. Peppler (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (Vol. 1, pp. 239–241). SAGE Publications, Inc.,
https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781483385198.n94
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory,
research, and practice. Jossey-Bass.
Fairchild, E. E. (2009). Christian privilege, history, and trends in U.S. higher education. New
Directions for Student Services, 125, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/SS.302
Ferber, A. L. (2012). The culture of privilege: Color-blindness, postfeminism, and
Christonormativity. Journal of Social Issues. 68(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/
10.1111/J.1540-4560.2011.01736.X
176

Fleming, D. (n.d.). Reflection and our active lives. IgnatianSpirituality.com.
https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-prayer/the-examen/reflection-and-our-
active-lives/
Fosnacht, K., & Broderick, C. (2017). An overlooked factor? How religion and spirituality
influence students’ perception of the campus climate. Manuscript in review. https://cpb-
us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.iu.edu/dist/1/159/files/2017/11/
Fosnacht_Broderick_Role_of_Religion-Spirituality_full-19nzst7.pdf
Fosnacht, K., & Broderick, C. (2018). The role of religion and institution type in seniors’
perception of the religious and spiritual campus climate. Journal of College and
Character, 19(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10/1080/2194587X.2017.1411274
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for
meaning. Harper Collins.
Fowler, J. W. (1986). Faith and the structuring of meaning. In C. Dykstra & S. Parks (Eds.),
Faith development and Fowler (pp. 15–42). Religious Education Press.
Fowler, J. W. (2001). Faith development theory and the postmodern challenges. International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 11(3), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327582IJPR1103_03
Fowler, J. W., & Dell, M. L. (2006). Stages of faith from infancy through adolescence:
Reflections on three decades of faith development theory. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E.
King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in
childhood and adolescence (p. 34–45). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781412976657.n3
177

Geger, B. T. (2014). Cura personalis: Some Ignatian inspirations. Ignatian Higher Education,
3(2), 6–20. https://epublications.regis.edu/jhe/vol3/iss2/2
Gillen-O’Neel, C. (2019). Sense of belonging and student engagement: A daily study of first‐
and continuing‐generation college students. Research in Higher Education, 62, 45–71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09570-y
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–366.
https://doi.org/10.17763/HAER.72.3.01151786U134N051
Hailu, M., Collins, L., & Stanton, A. (2018). Inclusion and safe-spaces for dialogue analysis of
Muslim students. Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education, 10, 13–
18. https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jcihe/article/view/908
Harter, J., castor, m., Seigler, C. P., &Abrahams, D. (2018). Navigating identity and privilege in
multifaith engagement on a college campus. Journal of College and Character, 19(1), 4–
17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2017.1411281
Hennick, M. (2014). Focus group discussions: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford
University Press.
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study
research. Nurse Researcher, 20, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326.
Holmes, S. L., Roedder, B. S., & Flowers, L. A. (2004). Applying student development theory to
college students' spiritual beliefs. College Student Affairs Journal, 23(2), 130–145.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher
Education, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1992.11778388
178

Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the
classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity
challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 187203). Harvard
Educational Publishing Group.
Hurtado S. (2015). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of
Social Issues, 61, 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00422.x
Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M. & Arellano, L. (2012). A model
for diverse learning environments: The scholarship on creating and assessing conditions
for student success. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (eds.), Higher Education: Handbook
of Theory and Research, 27 (pp.41–122). Springer.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A. & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus climate for
racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education,
21(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1353/RHE.1998.0003
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A. & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(8). https://doi.org/10.13016/EHAZ-A6JT
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1538192705276548
Jasso, G., Massey, D. S., Rosenzweig, M. R., & Smith, J. P. (2003). Exploring religious
preference of recent immigrants in the United States: Evidence from the new immigrant
survey pilot. In Y.Y. Haddad, J.I. Smith, & J.L. Esposito (Eds.), Religion and
179

immigration: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim experiences in the United States (pp. 217–
253). AltaMira Press.
Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and
global society? Campus diversity and crosscultural workforce competencies. Harvard
Educational Review, 78, 615–651. https://doi.org/10.17763/
HAER.78.4.B60031P350276699
John Paul II. (1990). Ex Corde Ecclesiae [On Catholic universities]. Retrieved from
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-
ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae.html
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Education research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th edition). Sage Publications.
Johnson, K., & Laurence, P. (2012). Multi-faith religious spaces on college and university
campuses. Religion & Education, 39(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15507394.2012.648579
Joshi, K.Y. (2020). White Christian privilege: The illusion of religious equality in America. New
York University Press.
Kilgo, C. A., Mollet, A. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). The estimated effects of college student
involvement on psychological well-being. Journal of College Student Development.
57(8), 1043–1049. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0098.
Kolvenbach, P. H. (2007). The service of faith in a religiously pluralistic world. Conversations
on Jesuit Higher Education, 32(19), 44–52. http://epublications.marquette.edu/
conversations/vol32/iss1/19
Koshy, E., Koshy, V., & Waterman, H. (2011). Action research in healthcare. Sage.
180

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Review Books.
Kotter, J. P. (2018). 8 steps to accelerate change in your organization [eBook]. Kotter Inc.
https://www.kotterinc.com/research-and-insights/8-steps-accelerating-change-ebook-
2020/
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th edition). Sage Publications.
LaBelle, J., & Kendall, D. (2011). Catholic colleges in the 21st century: A roadmap for campus
ministry. Paulist Press.
LaBelle, J., & Kendall, D. (2016). Characteristics of Jesuit colleges and universities in the United
States: A reciprocal interdependence analysis. Journal of Catholic Education, 19(3),
264–289. https://doi.org/10.15365/JOCE.1903132016
Liddell, E. R. A., & Stedman, C. D. (2011). Nontheistic students on campus: Understanding and
accommodating atheists, agnostics, humanists, and others. Journal of College and
Character, 12(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1813
Manney, J. (2017). Ignatian Spirituality A to Z. Loyola Press.
Markowitz, L. & Puchner, L. (2018). Structural ignorance of Christian privilege. Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(10), 877–894. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09518398.2018.1506180
Marshall, K. (2010). Education for all: Where does religion come in? Comparative Education,
46, 273–287. https//dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2010.503739
Matus-Betancourt, O., Schilling, M. J., Bastidas, J. Pérez-Villalobos, C., McColl-Calvo, P. &
Espinoza Parcet, C. (2018). Higher education inclusion and its dimensions: A theoretical
proposal. MedEdPublish, 7. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2018.0000029.1
181

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Sage.
Mayhew, M. J., Bowman, N. A., & Rockenbach, A. N. (2014) Silencing whom? Linking campus
climates for religious, spiritual, and worldview diversity to student worldviews. The
Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 219–245, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221546.2014.11777325
Mayhew, M. J., & Bryant, A. N. (2012). Achievement or arrest? The influence of the collegiate
religious and spiritual climate on students’ worldview commitment. Research in Higher
Education, 54, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1162-012-9262-7
Mayhew, M. J., Hoggan, C., Rockenbach, A. N., & Lo, M. A. (2016) The association between
worldview climate dimensions and college students' perceptions of transformational
learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 674–700, http://doi.org/10.1080/
00221546.2016.11777418
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see
correspondences through work in women’s studies. Wellesley College Center for
Research on Women. https://www.wcwonline.org/images/pdf/
White_Privilege_and_Male_Privilege_Personal_Account-Peggy_McIntosh.pdf
McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In M. McGoldrick
(Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp.
147–152. Guilford.
Means, D. R., & Pyne, K. B. (2017). Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and
belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(6), 907–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0071
182

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milem, J. F., Change, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/mei/MakingDiversityWork.pdf
Mujawar, I., Sabatino, M., Mitchell, S.R., Walker, B., Wessinger, P., Plankey, M. (2014). A 12-
year comparison of students’ perspectives on diversity at a Jesuit medical school,
Medical Education Online, 19(1), Article 23401, https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v19.23401
Notre Dame. (1967). The idea of a Catholic university. Retrieved from https://cushwa.nd.edu/
assets/245340/landolakesstatement.pdf
Paredes-Collins, K. (2013). Cultivating diversity and spirituality: A compelling interest for
institutional priority. Christian Higher Education, 12(1/2), 122–137. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15363759.2013.739436
Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for
meaning, purpose, and faith. Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E., Martin, G., Hanson, J., Trolian, T., Gillig, B. & Blaich, C. (2014). Effects of
diversity experiences on critical thinking skills over four years of college. Journal of
College Student Development, 55. 86–92. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0009.
Patel, E. (2007). Religious diversity and cooperation on campus. Journal of College and
Character, 9(2), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1120
Patel, E. & Meyer, C. (2009). Engaging religious diversity on campus: The role of interfaith
leadership. Journal of College and Character, 10(7), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-
1639.1436
183

Patten, T. A., & Rice, N. D. (2008). Religious minorities and persistence at a systemic
religiously-affiliated university. Christian Higher Education, 8(1), 42–53, https://doi.org/
10.1080/15363750802349323
Peck, K., & Stick, S. (2008). Catholic and Jesuit identity in higher education. Christian Higher
Education, 7(3), 200–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15363750701818394
Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. In W.
G. Tierney (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research: No. 68. Assessing academic
climates and cultures (pp. 3–34). Jossey-Bass.
Pew Research Center. (2015). America’s changing religious landscape. Retrieved from
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
Pew Research Center. (2019). In U.S., decline of Christianity continues at rapid pace: An update
on America’s changing religious landscape. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/
2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
Possamai, A., & Brackenreg, E. (2009). Religious and spirituality diversity at a multi-campus
suburban university: what type of need for chaplaincy? Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 31(4), 355–366. https://doi.org/10/1080/13600800903191989
Prothero, S.R. (2007). Religious literacy: What every American needs to know—And doesn’t.
Harper One.
Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach
to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262–
274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014018
184

Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a
developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44(4), 383–403.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0032
Riggers-Piehl, T. A. & Lehman, K. J. (2016) Modeling the relationship between campus spiritual
climate and the sense of belonging for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish students. Religion
& Education, 43(3), 247–270, https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2016.1175843
Robinson, S.B., & Leonard, K.F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rockenbach, A. B., & Mayhew, M. J. (2013). How the collegiate religious and spiritual climate
shapes students’ ecumenical orientation. Research in Higher Education, 54, 461–479.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9282-y
Rockenbach, A. B., & Mayhew, M. J. (2014). The campus spiritual climate: Predictors of
satisfaction among students with diverse worldviews. Journal of College Student
Development, 55(1), 41–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0002
Rockenbach, A. B., Mayhew, M. J., & Bowman, N. A. (2015). Perceptions of the campus
climate for nonreligious students. Journal of College Student Development, 56(2), 181–
186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0021
Rockenbach, A. B., Mayhew, M. J., Bowman, N. A., Morin, S. M., & Riggers-Piehl, T. (2017).
An examination of non-Muslim college students’ attitudes toward Muslims. The Journal
of Higher Education, 88(4), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272329
Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., Gless, M.E., Morin, S. M., Staples, B. A., Correia-Harker,
B.P., & Associates (2020). IDEALS: Bridging religious divides through higher
education. Interfaith Youth Core. http://ifyc.org/sites/default/files/navigating-religious-
diversity-9-27.pdf
185

Rodgers, R. F. (1990). Recent theories and research underlying student development. In D. G.
Creamer & Associates (Eds.), College student development: Theory and practice for the
1990s (pp. 27–79). American College Personnel Association.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and
approaches to theory development. In Research Methods for Business Students. (5th ed.,
pp. 128–170). Pearson Education India.
Schlosser, L. Z. (2003). Christian privilege: Breaking the sacred taboo. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 31, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.2161-
1912.2003.TB00530.X
Schlosser, L. Z., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2001). Religious holidays on campus: Policies, problems,
and recommendations (Research Report #02-21, 2–14). Office of the Vice President for
Student Affairs, University of Maryland.
Schmalzbauer, J. (2013). Campus religious life in America: Revitalization and renewal. Society,
50, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12115-013-9640-6
Seifert, T. (2007). Understanding Christian privilege: Managing the tensions of spiritual
plurality. About Campus, 12(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ABC.206
Shapiro, A. & Beardsley, E. (Hosts). (2021, April 8). French senate voted to ban the hijab for
minors in a plea by the conservative right [Audio podcast episode]. In All Things
Considered. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/08/985475584/french-senate-voted-to-
ban-the-hijab-for-minors-in-a-plea-by-the-conservative-ri
Small, J. L., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). Religious commitment, skepticism, and struggle among
U.S. college students: The impact of majority/minority religious affiliation and
186

institutional type. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 154–174.
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-5906.2010.01557.X
Society of Jesus (n.d.). About us: The Jesuits. Jesuits.org. https://jesuits.org/aboutus
Sorrentino, P. (2010). What do college students want? A student-centered approach to multi-faith
involvement. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 45(1), 79–96.
Stevenson, J. (2013). Discourses of inclusion and exclusion: religious students in UK higher
education. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 14(3), 27–43. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5456/WPLL.14.3.27
Stevenson, J. (2014). Internationalisation and religious inclusion in United Kingdom higher
education. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 46–64. http://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12033
Stolzenberg, E. B., Aragon, M. C., Romo, E., Couch, V., McLennan, D., Eagan, M. K., & Kang,
N. (2020). The American freshman: National norms fall 2019. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA. https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/
TheAmericanFreshman2019.pdf
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge.
Tienda, M. (2013). Diversity ≠inclusion: Promoting integration in higher education. Educational
Researcher, 42(9), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13516164
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125. https://doi.org/
10.3102%2F00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2d ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
187

Tobbell, R., Burton, R., Gaynor, A., Golding, B., Greenhough, C. R., & White, S. (2021).
Inclusion in higher education: an exploration of the subjective experiences of students.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(2), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0309877X.2020.1753180
Traub, G.W. (2008). Do you speak Ignatian? A glossary of terms used in Ignatian and Jesuit
circles. In G.W. Traub (Ed.), A Jesuit education reader: Contemporary writing on the
Jesuit mission in education, principles, the issue of Catholic identity, practice
applications of the Ignatian way, and more (pp. 390–409). Loyola Press. (Reprinted from
“Do you speak Ignatian? A glossary of terms used in Ignatian and Jesuit circles, 10th
edition” 2008, Xavier University, http://www.jesuitresource.org/ignatian-resources/do-
you-speak-ignatian.cfm)
Vacarro, A., & Newman, B. M. (2016). Development of a sense of belonging for privileged and
minoritized Students: An emergent model. Journal of College Student Development, 57
(8), 925–942. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0091
Vatican Council II. (1965). Gaudium et Spes [The church in the modern world]. Retrieved from
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
Vatican Council II. (1965). Nostra Aetate [The relation of the church to non-Christian religions].
Retrieved from https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.
188

Watt, S. K. (2007). Difficult dialogues, privilege, and social justice: Uses of the Privileged
Identity Exploration (PIE) Model in student affairs practice. College Student Affairs
Journal, 26(2), 114–126.
Watt, S. K. (2009). Facilitating difficult dialogues at the intersection of religious privilege. New
Directions for Student Services, 125, 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.304
Weller, P., Hooley, T. & Moore, N. (2011) Religion and Belief in Higher Education: The
Experiences of Staff and Students. London: Equality Challenge Unit.
https://hdl.handle.net/10545/197916
Wimberley, J. (2003). Education for intercultural and interfaith dialogue: A new initiative by the
Council of Europe. Prospects UNESCO, 33, 199–209. https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1023646930724
Wheeler, T. R. & Holmes, K. L. (2017). Rapid transformation of two libraries using Kotter’s
eight steps of change. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(3), 276–281.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.97
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J., (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and
unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding
college student success, Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), pp.407–428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0077
World Health Organization. (2020). Q&A on coronaviruses (covid-19). Retrieved August 29,
2020, from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-
and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses
Wuthnow, R. (2005). America and the challenges of religious diversity. Princeton University
Press.
189

Appendix A: Semistructured Interview Protocol

Interviewee Name:
Interviewee Alias:

Thank you for joining me over Zoom today, my name is Richard Alvia, and I am a co-
investigator on this study on behalf of Angélica Quiñónez, a doctoral candidate at the University
of Southern California. You are here to take part in an interview which will be used as part of the
research for a dissertation. The dissertation is focused on the sense of belonging and inclusion of
students from minoritized religious traditions or belief systems at Jesuit Catholic universities.

Before the interviewer begins the interview, I need your consent to participate. I will now share
the consent form (share screen) that was previously sent to you for your review. Please take a
few moments to review the form again, if necessary.

Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary. At any time, if you decide that you
no longer wish to participate, please let me know and the interview will end. This also includes
the inclusion of any of your responses in the dissertation. Every effort will be made to protect
your anonymity and privacy, including providing you with the opportunity to create an alias that
will be used in place of any identifying information. This interview will be recorded using the
recording feature provided by Zoom and a secondary recording will be made using an audio
interface connected to my laptop. The recording will primarily be heard by me, as the
interviewer. Additionally, the audio recording will be automatically transcribed by Zoom and
will be sent to a third-party transcription service. Do I have your consent?

Before I begin asking questions, I want to tell you a little bit about this study. This study fulfills a
requirement for obtaining the doctoral degree in education at USC. Angélica’s dissertation is
focused on the experience of sense of belonging of students that are non-Christian at Jesuit
Catholic universities. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a practicing Catholic and a graduate
student at WCJU. This dissertation work will also inform how this university, and other Jesuit
universities, respond to the needs of non-Christian students on campus.

The way that this interview is structured is that I will first ask questions to get to know you,
including information on any religious tradition or belief system with which you are connected.
Then I will then ask questions related to your experience as a non-Christian student on campus.
Please feel free to respond as openly and honestly as possible about your personal experience.
There are no wrong answers. Feel free to ask any clarifying questions and let me know if you
need me to repeat any of the questions. Feel free to be yourself.

Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin?

190

Table A1: Semistructured Interview Protocol Questions
Interview question Probes Research questions (RQ)

Please tell me your name,
graduation year, and major.
Demographic Questions

Do you have a personal faith or
belief system? If so, what is it?

Tell me more about your
relationship with your
tradition.
Do you consider yourself
religious, spiritual, or
neither?
How active are you? (To be
asked if student follows a
particular tradition)

Demographic Question
What made you choose to attend
WJCU?
What other schools did you
consider?

RQ 1, 2

Knowing that WJCU is a
Catholic university, can you
share any hesitation, you may
have felt in attending the
university?
How did the fact that it is a
Jesuit school affect your
decision-making process?
RQ 1, 2

Think back to your first week on
campus. What was the
experience like for you?

Did you feel welcomed?
What aspects of that first
week helped you to feel
included as part of the
community?

RQ 1, 2, 3, 4
As a non-Christian (or non-
religious) student on campus,
in what ways to you engage
with students that share the
same or similar beliefs?
What spaces, if any, do you
utilize on campus to foster
this sense of community?
RQ 3, 4, 5

How would you define the term
“Christian Privilege”?

Do you see that reflected on
campus? How so?
RQ 1, 2, 3

Do you feel that your religious
background is or is not
reflected within the campus
community?

Why do you feel that way?
Can you provide me with an
example?
RQ 2, 3, 4, 5
191

Interview question Probes Research questions (RQ)

How do you find your
community on campus?

In what ways has the
university facilitated the
process of building
community?
RQ 4, 5
In what ways, if any, has the
university supported your
faith/belief development and
expression?
RQ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

In what ways has the university
openly welcomed your
tradition/beliefs on-campus?
RQ 4, 5

While the school must maintain
its heritage, in what ways do
you feel that the university can
begin or continue to open
doors for interreligious
dialogue and truly create the
place of peace, understanding,
and justice that it espouses?

Have you seen any evidence
of this happening on
campus? Can you provide
a few examples?
RQ 2, 3, 4, 5
In your experience, have you
ever felt as if your voice as a
non-Christian student was
devalued?
Please elaborate on your
experience. In what ways,
if any, do you feel that the
academic calendar, for
example, has taken or not
take non-Christian
traditions into account?
RQ 2, 3, 4, 5
What can the university do better
to help you feel a greater sense
of belonging in the
community?
RQ 3, 4, 5

192

Appendix B: Theoretical Alignment Matrix
Research questions Theoretical framework(s) Data instrument questions

Demographic questions

Interview questions: 1, 2

How is Christian privilege
perceived by non-Christian
students?
Enacting diverse learning
environments theory
(Hurtado et al., 1998)

Interview questions: 3-5, 7 10
What role does Christian
privilege play in the lives
of non-Christian and non-
religiously affiliated
students at Jesuit Catholic
universities?
Ecological systems theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
2005)

Enacting diverse learning
environment theory
(Hurtado et al., 1998)

Interview questions: 3-5, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13
To what extent does Christian
privilege shape the sense of
belonging and inclusion of
non-Christian and non-
religiously affiliated
students?
Ecological systems theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
2005)

Enacting diverse learning
environments theory
(Hurtado et al., 1998)

Interview questions: 5-8, 10,
12-14
What challenges do non-
Christian and non-
religiously affiliated
students face in finding
opportunities to exercise
their beliefs on campus?
Ecological systems theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
2005)

Enacting diverse learning
environments theory
(Hurtado et al., 1998)

Interview questions: 5, 6, 8-
14
How are schools helping
students develop various
religious and non-religious
identities and the space and
support for such
expression?
Enacting diverse learning
environments theory
(Hurtado et al., 1998)

Interview questions: 6, 8-14

193

Appendix C: IRB Approval

University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90033-9269
Telephone: (323) 442-0114
Fax: (323) 224-8389
Email: irb@usc.edu

Date: Dec 26, 2020, 02:09pm
Action Taken: Approve
Principal
Investigator:
Angelica Quinonez
ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Faculty
Advisor:
Patricia Tobey
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
Co-
Investigator(s)
:
Richard Alvia
Volunteer
Project Title: Non-Christian Students at Jesuit Catholic Universities
Study ID: UP-20-01302
Funding: N/A - no funding source listed

The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) designee reviewed your
iStar application and attachments on 12/26/2020.
Based on the information submitted for review, this study is determined to be exempt from 45
CFR 46 according to §46.104(d) as category (2).
As research which is considered exempt according to §46.104(d), this proje ct is not subject to
requirements for continuing review. You are authorized to conduct this research as approved.
If there are significant changes that increase the risk to subjects or if the funding has changed,
you must submit an amendment to the IRB for review and approval. For other revisions to the
application, use the “Send Message to IRB” link.
The materials submitted and considered for review of this project included:
1. iStar application dated 11/10/2020
2. IRBA Revised AQ_Interview Protocol .docx (0.02)
194

Appendix D: Informed Consent

3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Sense of Belonging and Inclusion Among Minoritized Non-Christian Students
at Jesuit Catholic Universities: A Qualitative Study

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Angélica Quiñónez

CO-INVESTIGATOR: Richard Alvia

FACULTY ADVISOR: Patricia Tobey, PhD

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
This study fulfills a requirement for obtaining the doctoral degree in education at USC. The
dissertation is focused on the experience of sense of belonging of students that are non-Christian
at Jesuit Catholic universities. In the interest of full disclosure, both the principal investigator and
co-investigator are practicing Catholics. The co-investigator is also a graduate student at USF.
This dissertation work will also inform how this university, and other Jesuit universities, respond
to the needs of non-Christian students on campus.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary. At any time, if you decide that you
no longer wish to participate, please let the interviewer know and the interview will end. This
also includes the inclusion of any of your responses in the dissertation. Every effort will be made
to protect your anonymity and privacy, including providing you with the opportunity to create an
alias that will be used in place of any identifying information. This interview will be recorded
using the recording feature provided by Zoom and a secondary recording will be made using an
audio interface connected to a laptop when available. The recording will be heard by the co-
investigator. Additionally, the audio recording will be automatically transcribed by Zoom, via
the Otter service, and will be sent to a third-party transcription service, Temi.com.

If you decide to take part, you will be asked a series of questions about your experience at USF
195

related to your experience related to sense of belonging and inclusion at the university. Questions
are open-ended. Interviews will be 45-minutes to one-hour in length.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive $15 gift card to the coffeehouse of your choice for your time. The card will be
sent to you at the conclusion of the study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of
Southern California and the University of San Francisco may access the data. The IRB reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

All identifiable information will be removed from the transcripts, by the co-investigator, prior to
review by the principal investigator. An alias will be used for each participant for inclusion in the
dissertation.

Participants will be provided an opportunity to review transcripts to clarify any inaccuracies in
transcription. Transcripts will be uploaded to the cloud and password protected. They will be
stored for future use, by the principal investigator, if necessary. Audio/Video recordings will be
destroyed by the co-investigator at the completion of the study.

Information from this study may be used to shape future university decisions that impact students
of all faith traditions. Participants will not be identified in the process.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact co-investigator, Richard Alvia at
rzalvia@usfca.edu or Patricia Tobey, Faculty Advisor at tobey@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

: Demographics

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

What makes a house a home: factors of influence for Black students' sense of belonging at a predominately White institution

PDF

Identifying diversity solutions for the cybersecurity workforce shortage: a phenomenological qualitative study

PDF

Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Post-secondary distance education: cultivating a sense of belonging through teaching presence

PDF

Leadership development in a multigenerational workforce: a qualitative study

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

The swirl world: sense of belonging of Black multiracial identifying students at a predominantly white institution

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

An ecological behavioral examination of news media literacy among young adults

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion: leadership and school culture

Asset Metadata

Creator Quiñónez, Angélica Nohemi (author)

Core Title Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 10/15/2021

Defense Date 08/18/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Catholic,Christian privilege,Higher education,inclusion,interfaith,interreligious,Jesuit education,non-Christian,OAI-PMH Harvest,Religion,religious diversity,sense of belonging

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee chair), Bagula, Fabiola (committee member), Chung, Ruth (committee member)

Creator Email anquinon@usc.edu,anquinonez@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC16208265

Unique identifier UC16208265

Legacy Identifier etd-QuinezAngl-10165

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Quiñónez, Angélica Nohemi

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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu