THE WORDS just came out. The president of the University of Portland (UP) decided to tell a crowd of students that he knew their school had same sex-couples on staff—and if they went public, “then we would have trouble.”
Now, it seems, the president is the one with trouble.
On February 18, William Beauchamp, president of the city’s largest Catholic university, was speaking at what seemed like an intimate gathering. But Beauchamp’s blunder went viral on Twitter, in the process galvanizing the university’s student body against him. Now some students are demanding the school change its stance on sexual orientation. And—facing down calcified religious dogma and serious legal hurdles—they’ve got their first target: the school’s nondiscrimination policy.
Ten days after Beauchamp’s remarks, roughly 120 students duct-taped their mouths and gathered in the center of campus to kick off a campaign protesting their school’s policy of “silence” toward LGBTQ community members. The student activists, under the name Redefine Purple Pride, after the school’s colors, are demanding the school add sexual orientation to its equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policy. The policy—while providing protections for race, age, and gender, among others—says nothing about protecting LGBTQ staff, students, and faculty.
“It just seems backward to be in one of the most progressive cities in the nation and to be such an unprogressive school,” Redefine Purple Pride member Casey Andersen told the Mercury.
And that lack of a policy has some other consequences.
Joey Kerns, programs director at the Portland-based LGBTQ rights organization the Equity Foundation, says the school doesn’t let its students accept academic scholarships from the group.
“The University of Portland has repeatedly refused to sign our contracts,” Kerns said via email, “thereby preventing their students from receiving scholarships from Equity Foundation.”
UP spokeswoman Laurie Kelley emailed that this was a “misunderstanding,” and that “UP does not discriminate.” UP students also told the Mercury the school does not accept Equity Foundation scholarships.
But progress goes through Beauchamp, who’s made it clear he won’t change school policy. And legally—if not morally—he’s probably in the right.
UP spokesman Joe Kuffner told the Mercury that Beauchamp wouldn’t be available to comment for this story. But Beauchamp told the student newspaper, The Beacon, he wouldn’t address the issue unless it “were to become a public scandal.” It’s one of a series of carefully crafted statements making the case for inaction.
Responding to the Mercury‘s request for an interview, Kelley sent an email that promised UP would “work harder than ever within our community to make sure every member feels supported.”
She declined to say whether UP was considering changing its nondiscrimination policy. But many think Beauchamp has already signaled the school won’t.
“As a religious institution,” Beauchamp said in a statement issued on the day of the protest, “we are not required under state and federal law to include sexual orientation in our nondiscrimination policy… The University of Portland is a Roman Catholic institution and is guided by Catholic moral teaching on sexuality.”
Beauchamp is correct; religious organizations are legally allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. While the 2007 Oregon Equality Act—which also applies to students—makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against their employees based on sexual orientation, “bona fide” religious institutions, including religious schools, are exempt from this standard and can take “any employment action” based on “religious belief about sexual orientation.” Federal law includes no protections at all.
Queer and civil rights groups have lobbied for years to make it federally illegal for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The most recent bill offered for sacrifice is the Employee Non-Discrimination Act of 2011, sponsored by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley.
A second bill, which would extend similar rights to LGBTQ students at public schools, also died. Both of Oregon’s senators, Merkley and Ron Wyden, were among the co-sponsors.
But neither bill would have helped LGBTQ students or employees at religious schools. So why bother trying to write protections into a school discrimination policy that might not be legally binding?
“Having a policy in place lessens the chances of discrimination,” says Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group.
Warbelow also suggests that any school not following its internal policy might also be exposed to potential lawsuits. And, although she didn’t say it, that means the courts eventually could do what lawmakers won’t.
To date, a handful of Catholic colleges have added sexual orientation to their nondiscrimination policies, so it’s not unheard of. Students at UP want to be next. And there are hints the school could change.
In 2011, under Beauchamp’s guidance, UP crafted a non-binding “Statement of Inclusion” that at least gives a nod to the school’s LGBTQ community. Beauchamp has also made attempts to change the school’s culture, and has publicly decried discrimination based on sexual orientation. But members of Redefine Purple Pride—who say their protest isn’t about attacking the president—say these steps aren’t enough.
UP’s board of regents is scheduled to meet this May, and members of Redefine Purple Pride tell the Mercury they’ll take the issue directly to members.
“We don’t want our message to come from the president,” says UP student Maraya Sullivan, “clearly he isn’t interested.”
As for suggestions that students give up trying to change a religious institution that’s using doctrine to exclude people? Here’s why not: “I would say that social justice has been a major part of all our classes,” Sullivan says. “And it is a huge part of Catholicism.”
I’m sorry, I’m a bit confused. Did this whole thing blow up because of that half a sentence you quoted from the president:”then we would have trouble”? Do you have the actual transcript about what was actual said, like maybe the whole sentence or the question asked or statement before it? Because frankly, it seems just out of context by itself like that and could EASILY be distorted into really anything, like saying he was against LGBTQ protections. I’m not crying foul here just yet, but the lack of a full statement is worrisome. Please provide at least a link to it.
And has anybody taken the time to even consider the position Beauchamp is in? Sure, he is in charge of the school, but he IS NOT in charge of the Catholic Church. If he attempts to add such a policy, not only could he be defrocked, but other priests at UP might be too. And defrocking has happened MANY times in recent years across the country, even as high as archbishops, for supporting same-sex marriage and/or same-sex policies in the public. Instead of demonizing this man, which while reading this article many students, including the leaders of this “movement,” seem to already have, you people need to understand the position this man is in and the efforts he has taken, which have actually been important steps. And guess what will happen after he gets defrocked? A new priest comes in AKA BACK TO SQUARE ONE. If I were those students, I would thankful that, while seemingly minor and small efforts to them, Beauchamp is at least ATTEMPTING to support the LGBTQ community in as many unofficial efforts as he can, because, as I said, taking this official could ruin his career as well as many others in the process and it would also put UP right back to square one.
So what exactly does one “learn” at a Catholic school, anyways???
So, along with the Equity Foundation (mentioned in the article), I also read somewhere that the UBP (Union of Bellicose Pacifists) is lending their support to Redefine Purple Pride. But is there any word yet on what the League of Vegan Bovine Butchers (LVBB) has to say about this matter? What about the ACN (Association of Clothed Nudists)?
But i guess the real question is this: What LGBTQ person (or ANY person, actually) in their right mind would be a Catholic anyway, let alone attend a school of such a persuasion and expect anything more than fairy tales and close-mindedness?
Let these people have their silly, little school and their delusional, discriminative beliefs. Let them have their pope and their “Amens”. We have bigger fish to fry, IN THE REAL WORLD. I mean, what’s Redefine Purple Pride’s next mission going to be? To protest against the rule that bars atheists from becoming Catholic priests?
“What LGBTQ person (or ANY person, actually) in their right mind would be a Catholic anyway, let alone attend a school of such a persuasion and expect anything more than fairy tales and close-mindedness?”
THAT is a question that truly beckons an answer!
“The University of Portland is a Roman Catholic institution and is guided by Catholic moral teaching on sexuality.”
So should we take this to mean that UP’s stance on pedophilia is more or less “traditional” according to the blessed teachings of the bible?
NGN91: He probably actually wouldn’t be defrocked, as several other Holy Cross schools have already included Sexual Orientation in their non-discrimination policies.
human in training: Attending a catholic school doesn’t make one catholic, and nor should it. People follow opportunity, and if you find inequity where you end up, which option would you take: Give Up, or Fight? That’s the position that these students, myself included, have been faced with. It is more expensive for me to attend a public school in my home state per year than it is for me to attend UP. Should I incur massive debt? Should I not go to college? Should I attend an excellent university that will pay for the majority of my education and try to leave it a better, less hypocritical place?
And don’t trivialize the experience of the religious. You and I may not adhere to any religious belief, but assuming that everyone who is religious is some kind of anti-gay zealot is as naive as believing the Bible word for word. They know that there are problems in their faith; that doesn’t mean that they aren’t trying to change minds.
It’s incredibly easy to criticize, to hate and to demean. It’s much harder to stand up for the things you believe in.
DamosA: You sound like the liberal version of a Fox News subscriber. Actually.
Also, the whole quote that set people’s teeth on edge, as quoted from the student paper:
“We know that there are faculty and staff in same-sex relationships on campus,” Beauchamp said. “They are not public about it and we don’t ask them. But if someone were to go very public about it and make an issue then we would have trouble.”
http://www.upbeacon.net/mobile/students-as…
@ Align:
Nicely stated. A few things, though:
I never meant to imply that i think “everyone who is religious is some kind of anti-gay zealot” — obviously that isn’t true. “Religious” is a much broader term than the one i used — “Catholic”. And that is not to say, of course, that i think all Catholics are bigots, either. But if they adhere to their holy book and the teachings of the extreme majority of their leaders, then they can’t really help but to fall into that category, can they?
What i was trying to get across was simply that i find such a venue an odd place to try to exact change. I mean, the Bible has been written. It says what it says. If people only want to believe in the parts that they agree with, then they actually don’t really believe in it; they believe in something similar, sure, but it’s not really Christianity anymore once you decide to ignore chunks of its one and only ‘instruction manual’. So i guess i’m just curious as to why some of these people believe in and/or support (i.e., pay money into) something that they don’t really believe in.
Anyway, Align, you appear to be a pilgrim in an unholy land. Deep down, i applaud what you are trying to do. Good luck to you. You are trying to subvert their most basic and fervent beliefs while at the same time financially supporting them. Weird. More power to you.
I choose to do my part by not giving them any of my money at all, even if that means taking on more debt or forgoing college altogether. (I’ve also found that anonymously bitching about them on an oftentimes-blasphemous website is extremely effective, too.)
Take care. I’ll see you in hell. First beer/hooker is on me.
Align, there’s a reason why your school is soo cheap – because it is a CATHOLIC SCHOOL (get what you pay for)! And as I queried before, what could one possibly learn at a catholic school? What does your science curriculum look like? Are your history courses up to task? Does UP offer anthropology or geology courses? Political Science? Art (that isn’t Michelangelo or stained glass)? If a grown person makes the decision to attend a specifically RELIGIOUS school, there is a reason for that other than saving money. Now maybe your situation is unique, but most folks have various options so far as what school to go to. Pretty much by definition, attending a catholic school DOES make you a catholic! Unless UP is full of secular students who only go there because it’s cheap.
Also by definition, a “religious experience” is nothing but TRIVIAL!
DamosA, do your research. UP is a school that has been given accolades for its excellent business, engineering and nursing programs, all three of which have been recognized on a national level in some form. We are a liberal arts school, so yes we take art, history and social science courses. Believe it or not, we are taught evolution. UP is about 50% non-catholic. Cost of tuition is $40,000, the majority of which pays for the faculty and facilities. Stop flaming for the sake of flaming, you have no ground to stand on with arguments thrown together like that.
human in training, well put, the only thought I’d like to offer is this: The idea that thought had to be perfectly uniform within religion is about as new as Christianity itself. I don’t know that that is a correct or achievable idea.
So basically b/c I’m presenting a different though reasonable point of view that you just happen to take issue with, I’m “flaming”? There goes that good ol’ open-mindedness catholics are soo famous for.
And a catholic school is STILL a catholic school. So I really don’t care what you say, your OWE school’s president – William Beauchamp – says this: “The University of Portland is a Roman Catholic institution and is guided by Catholic moral teaching on sexuality.”
Being a Roman catholic obviously means something and it ain’t in no way good. Just ask any Spanish Republican. Or any Aboriginal who was forced to live at a catholic boarding school. Or any, I could just go on with this.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3122357355…
DamosA (and all): The main issue comes in what truly defines “Catholic moral teaching on sexuality.” There are many different perspectives within the faith on the issue of sexuality and sexual morality. For instance, several of the recent high profile candidates for Pope had a positive view on homosexuality, even though Pope Francis maintains a conservative perspective on the subject. Truly, it all hinges on the question of whether the Church and University are arguing that homosexuality is a choice. For the University to argue that homosexuality is NOT a choice, and is therefore a naturally occurring trait, yet still deny this group legal protection would be the same as to deny legal protection to any other group based on their having a naturally occurring trait, say a different race or sex. Obviously UP would not want to make this claim, since it would morally be the same for them to deny these protections to women or Asians, so the school must be arguing that homosexuality is a choice. This allows them to deny protection to people based on making what they view as an immoral life choice, a much more tenable position. Here, however, they also run into problems because of a little statement made by the Pope in 1994. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (basically a doctrinal statement made by the Pope that serves as an admittedly nonbinding guideline for the teaching of Catholicism, but a guideline nonetheless), Pope John Paul II made the following statement:
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.”
He goes on to state that the theory of evolution is almost certainly correct based on the overwhelming body of scientific evidence (paragraph 283) and that the creation story in Genesis should be interpreted symbolically, not literally. (paragraph 337). That’s right, it is the official position of the papacy to not only teach evolution, but to argue against Biblical literalism, all because there is scientific consensus on the issue. This would heavily suggest that the Church, and therefore the University, trust scientific consensus. The problem is that scientists have already come to a consensus on the issue of homosexuality. It is not a choice. It is a naturally occurring trait that comes about from a complicated interplay between genetics, epigenetics (the things that activate your genes), and, yes, the environment, although with this they are primarily referring to the environment of the mother’s womb and the hormone bath therein. Since it’s not a choice, then, we’re back to UP’s position being morally equivalent to racism or sexism. It makes no sense for the school to consider to both support the teaching of science and deny protections to homosexual staff, students, and faculty.