Thanks for writing on this. I teach at one of the other institutions on the front line of this issue, which you've blogged about by name recently. I hope you are right that some institutions will bravely step out to bury this hatchet, and become more welcoming to queer students. Indeed, I wish mine would do so (but it won't, given our Board).
Yet I worry that this is excessively optimistic: "... a window has opened. Now that the government is not going to force these changes upon Christian Universities, they can opt to voluntarily take a more open stance toward LGBTQ+ students, faculty, and staff." The old guard administrators and Trustees will not view these legal developments as security so that they can now rest easy and turn toward loving and accepting these students (nor, especially, any queer faculty or staff they may have!). Such Board members or Presidents will instead view this, given their classic culture-war mentality, as securing a win, and will advance to score further wins: they will double-down on marginalizing their queer students, rooting out the 'liberal' professors, and perhaps passing requirements of affirmations from their faculty or upper admin that they must *agree* with their anti-gay sexuality or behavioral policies. That they shouldn't speak out against them or teach their students affirming perspectives. Etc. BYU and others have already been cutting faculty who have voiced such opposition. My own institution may also engage in this over the next few months (though under the euphemism of 'program prioritization').
Such Board and administrative 'leaders' are uninterested in being more open and welcoming to LGBTQ individuals, whether on their faculty, staff, or students. They do not see queer folks as among their constituents or 'stakeholders', even if they feign support for them and respect for even their own faculty who think differently (as do a majority of our own faculty). These Board and denominational leaders are operating as if they want to return to an earlier 1990s era where it felt largely settled that gay sex was beyond the pale for Christians; they're seeking to correct course, given what they've seen happen the last 2 decades... and they're seeking to strengthen their advantage (having won the day within their denominations or at some key colleges where this has recently emerged as possibly changing their college toward becoming more affirming). What is so awful about all this, apart from how unloving and un-Christlike these attitudes and policies are toward LGBTQ folks, is that this is bringing financial ruin to many of these universities. If such Boards finally see the light that their institution is collapsing owing to lawsuits, annual falling enrollments, tarnished reputations, and fewer donors, it will be far too late to rescue these colleges. It is a live possibility that in 20 years there will be almost no CCCU colleges left.
I agree with everything you've said here. While my post was wildly optimistic, I was pointing out that the major hurdle of government mandates had been cleared. I also wanted to highlight that making the policy change would come with minimal change in institutional operation.
My newsletter on "program prioritization" was intended to highlight mission drift as well as raising the possibility of using PP as a tool to purge difficult faculty members. I'd also point out that purging the compassionate pro-queer faculty will only accelerate the damage you lay out at the end of your comment.
I have found great joy in no longer being institutionally affiliated, so that I can write this kind of analysis without fear of being called to the provost or president's office. My prayer is that by raising these issues analytically that some other faculty members can share these ideas without putting themselves at risk.
It's a good article. But to those of us on the inside of these debacles and scrambling to decide whether to stay on the plane going down to help it pull up, or to find our parachutes, it's totally unclear how our college can "lead the way" when the denominational trustees on our Board are controlling all our policies and are dead-set against changing this... and when, moreover, they are failing to help find enough donors to support the place. How are we supposed to lead the way when they are doubling down like this, looking to require faculty to agree or at least not speak out, and are, furthermore, overseeing faculty cuts due to their budget mismanagement?
The next 15 years present a huge opportunity for a certain kind of Christian college that has donor backing and can keep enrollments up: it will be in a position to hire all the very talented Christian faculty who will be leaving the other failing CCCU colleges for more stable (and presumably LGBTQ-affirming) pastures.
I highly recommend Jonathan Coley’s *Gay on God’s Campus*. Chapter four in particular explores how Belmont shifted their policies once they separated from the Tennessee Baptists. The student advocates couched their arguments in an expanded sense of Christian Community which influenced at lest one major donor/trustee to advocate for change.
We have made such theological arguments for years now. The key phrase however in your recommendation is "once they [Belmont] separated from" their denominational overlords. That is not possible at my institution, given that our Board is now dominated by such denomination-first conservatives who do not want to lose on this issue (even if they ruin the university). Thus at least for my school, the analogy with Belmont is a poor one. As I understand it, Belmont's Board *wanted* to separate from their denomination, and asked to; then soon after, the denomination wanted to separate by shifting its small amount of support to other schools. After some lawsuits, they reached a settlement. None of that is true at my institution (not even the small amount of support, since our denomination sends virtually no funding).
Thanks for writing on this. I teach at one of the other institutions on the front line of this issue, which you've blogged about by name recently. I hope you are right that some institutions will bravely step out to bury this hatchet, and become more welcoming to queer students. Indeed, I wish mine would do so (but it won't, given our Board).
Yet I worry that this is excessively optimistic: "... a window has opened. Now that the government is not going to force these changes upon Christian Universities, they can opt to voluntarily take a more open stance toward LGBTQ+ students, faculty, and staff." The old guard administrators and Trustees will not view these legal developments as security so that they can now rest easy and turn toward loving and accepting these students (nor, especially, any queer faculty or staff they may have!). Such Board members or Presidents will instead view this, given their classic culture-war mentality, as securing a win, and will advance to score further wins: they will double-down on marginalizing their queer students, rooting out the 'liberal' professors, and perhaps passing requirements of affirmations from their faculty or upper admin that they must *agree* with their anti-gay sexuality or behavioral policies. That they shouldn't speak out against them or teach their students affirming perspectives. Etc. BYU and others have already been cutting faculty who have voiced such opposition. My own institution may also engage in this over the next few months (though under the euphemism of 'program prioritization').
Such Board and administrative 'leaders' are uninterested in being more open and welcoming to LGBTQ individuals, whether on their faculty, staff, or students. They do not see queer folks as among their constituents or 'stakeholders', even if they feign support for them and respect for even their own faculty who think differently (as do a majority of our own faculty). These Board and denominational leaders are operating as if they want to return to an earlier 1990s era where it felt largely settled that gay sex was beyond the pale for Christians; they're seeking to correct course, given what they've seen happen the last 2 decades... and they're seeking to strengthen their advantage (having won the day within their denominations or at some key colleges where this has recently emerged as possibly changing their college toward becoming more affirming). What is so awful about all this, apart from how unloving and un-Christlike these attitudes and policies are toward LGBTQ folks, is that this is bringing financial ruin to many of these universities. If such Boards finally see the light that their institution is collapsing owing to lawsuits, annual falling enrollments, tarnished reputations, and fewer donors, it will be far too late to rescue these colleges. It is a live possibility that in 20 years there will be almost no CCCU colleges left.
I agree with everything you've said here. While my post was wildly optimistic, I was pointing out that the major hurdle of government mandates had been cleared. I also wanted to highlight that making the policy change would come with minimal change in institutional operation.
My newsletter on "program prioritization" was intended to highlight mission drift as well as raising the possibility of using PP as a tool to purge difficult faculty members. I'd also point out that purging the compassionate pro-queer faculty will only accelerate the damage you lay out at the end of your comment.
I have found great joy in no longer being institutionally affiliated, so that I can write this kind of analysis without fear of being called to the provost or president's office. My prayer is that by raising these issues analytically that some other faculty members can share these ideas without putting themselves at risk.
Here's a good article from Giovanna Del'Otto and Yonat Shimron in which I was interviewed shortly before writing this post: https://apnews.com/article/religion-education-minnesota-gender-identity-gay-rights-009a5be975ab3cb5f0e24d3fe9b0479d
It's a good article. But to those of us on the inside of these debacles and scrambling to decide whether to stay on the plane going down to help it pull up, or to find our parachutes, it's totally unclear how our college can "lead the way" when the denominational trustees on our Board are controlling all our policies and are dead-set against changing this... and when, moreover, they are failing to help find enough donors to support the place. How are we supposed to lead the way when they are doubling down like this, looking to require faculty to agree or at least not speak out, and are, furthermore, overseeing faculty cuts due to their budget mismanagement?
The next 15 years present a huge opportunity for a certain kind of Christian college that has donor backing and can keep enrollments up: it will be in a position to hire all the very talented Christian faculty who will be leaving the other failing CCCU colleges for more stable (and presumably LGBTQ-affirming) pastures.
I highly recommend Jonathan Coley’s *Gay on God’s Campus*. Chapter four in particular explores how Belmont shifted their policies once they separated from the Tennessee Baptists. The student advocates couched their arguments in an expanded sense of Christian Community which influenced at lest one major donor/trustee to advocate for change.
We have made such theological arguments for years now. The key phrase however in your recommendation is "once they [Belmont] separated from" their denominational overlords. That is not possible at my institution, given that our Board is now dominated by such denomination-first conservatives who do not want to lose on this issue (even if they ruin the university). Thus at least for my school, the analogy with Belmont is a poor one. As I understand it, Belmont's Board *wanted* to separate from their denomination, and asked to; then soon after, the denomination wanted to separate by shifting its small amount of support to other schools. After some lawsuits, they reached a settlement. None of that is true at my institution (not even the small amount of support, since our denomination sends virtually no funding).