“Put the Jesuit Out Front”: How a Catholic, Jesuit University Addresses LGBQ Issues

Abstract

The campus climate for LGBQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer) communities in higher education has improved, but not necessarily at religiously affiliated institutions. This case study explores how faculty, staff, and students at a Jesuit, Catholic university address LGBQ issues through interviews, participant observation, and document review. Findings revealed that participants employed a variety of tactics adapted for the Catholic higher education context like Safe Space programming, opportunities for intellectual discourse, and leveraging the curriculum. To navigate institutional power dynamics, participants utilized framing issues as congruent with the university’s mission and engaged influential allies like Jesuit priests. This study holds implications for navigating organizational power dynamics in higher education and addressing the tension posed by addressing LGBQ issues on religiously affiliated campuses.

Creating Safe Spaces: Opportunities, Resources, and LGBTQ Student Groups at U.S. Colleges and Universities

“…Qualitative research shows that students must often take up the work of “framing” LGBTQ groups as in line with the institutional missions of their colleges and universities, thus making the groups appealing to students and palatable to administrators (see, e.g., Coley 2018a: chap. 4; Hughes 2020; McEntarfer 2011). Our study should be understood as complementing, but not replacing, this important qualitative work about the establishment of LGBTQ groups at colleges and universities.…”

“…For example, research shows that students who join LGBTQ groups are less likely to experience depression (Kulick et al 2017; Woodford, Kulick, et al 2018) and more likely to develop positive personal relationships (Fetner and Elafros 2015). 1 LGBTQ student groups also play an important role in improving the campus climate for all LGBTQ students, whether they participate in such groups or not (Hughes 2020; Marx and Kettrey 2016), and they inspire many students to engage in activism both within and outside the confines of their schools (Coley 2018a; Renn 2007; Renn and Bilodeau 2005; Schmitz and Tyler 2018). Yet despite the demonstrated value of LGBTQ student groups, we currently know little about the prevalence of LGBTQ student groups and the types of school where LGBTQ student groups are most likely to be found.…”

Communication strategies and responses to change around issues of sexuality in Catholic higher education

“…Gathering data about what other universities are doing or what one's own university has done in the past has been reported as a useful step. Hughes (2015) identified communication tactics such as using research to build a case as an important component of effecting change. Along with many other tactics, Hughes noted these tactics as stemming from the organizational change literature (Meyerson, 2003;Kezar;Lester, 2011).…”

“…Increasing visibility of LGBTQ employees on campus was an important tactic used in creating change. Hughes (2015) identified intellectual discourse and demonstrating allyship as useful tools for change. The particular method of employee visibility as a mode of communicating safety, allyship, or bravery can provide support for students in ways that public discussion or other forms of allyship cannot.…”

“…Part of the preemptive communication strategies included adopting a mindset that involved a student-focused philosophy about the change. Hughes (2015) stresses the importance of framing the message within the mission of the school. While I also found religious mission incorporation to be an important method of communication (and coded it under policy and institutional forms of communication), if participants discussed how this change benefits students, change was much more likely to happen.…”