View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Learning from the Mediators: How Student Affairs Staff at Christian Colleges Combine Care and Conviction in Their Responses to LGBTQ+ Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Learning from the Mediators: How Student Affairs Staff at Christian Colleges Combine Care and Conviction in Their Responses to LGBTQ+ Students
Language: English
Authors: Glanzer, Perry L. (ORCID 0000-0002-3649-2516), Graber, Britney N. (ORCID 0000-0002-6347-6845), Cockle, Theodore F. (ORCID 0000-0001-5335-8362)
Source: Christian Higher Education. 2022 21(4):300-325.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Personnel Workers, Religious Colleges, Christianity, Caring, LGBTQ People, Minority Group Students, Leaders, Attitudes, Moral Values, Professional Development
DOI: 10.1080/15363759.2021.1978903
ISSN: 1536-3759
1539-4107
Abstract: The relationship between faith-based institutions and students who identify as LGBTQ+ has attracted considerable attention of late. Most of this scholarly attention, however, has focused upon the students themselves. In this article, we examine the contemporary experience of 371 student affairs leaders (SALs) who serve as the primary mediators between the desires and demands of LGBTQ+ advocates, scholars, and students, and the policies of current administrators. This article reports on previously unexplored data from a larger grounded theory study on Christ-enlivened student affairs to answer the research question: How do SALs at Christian universities approach LGBTQ+ students in light of the Christian mission of their institutions? Data were collected using a qualitative questionnaire of 301 SALs, as well as extended interviews with 70 SALs. Participants' moral/theological responses included a collection of Christian virtues and rules. They indicated a range of helpful practices--including how they handled campus groups--but generally agreed on the dearth of training and education they had received on the topic. In our discussion, we compare our findings to the recommendations of previous scholars before elaborating our own list of recommendations. Our suggestions for Christian campuses include a re-imagined policy statement, a commitment to education rather than training, a focus on the spiritual needs of students, and some recommendations for LGBTQ+ campus groups.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1362054
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH9n-j9fyy4UtiZ6-5J9984AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNwc5eZbbJmyIkEFswIBEICBm4zfhw1W7HJaHsYtojY_zWgE7XXS5tAMTwTorxPu8jj96YCtuV44WUb9NyHbduDY4EbnUMkWWJL-Lp6jhROXBhwIb8I8X3CKjM_6oNdwpRXaVOxdLryF5mcQxZu6LLXxex07pg6c2eGxJPP7APQdMrWO0RWev0yV4HF7UanCmlnQLGv7FfqrGNPOJlqfi0-W6xt4EmiIJtiYUkYN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0158319977;j2401jul.22;2022Aug04.06:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0158319977-1">Learning from the Mediators: How Student Affairs Staff at Christian Colleges Combine Care and Conviction in Their Responses to LGBTQ+ Students </title> <p>The relationship between faith-based institutions and students who identify as LGBTQ+ has attracted considerable attention of late. Most of this scholarly attention, however, has focused upon the students themselves. In this article, we examine the contemporary experience of 371 student affairs leaders (SALs) who serve as the primary mediators between the desires and demands of LGBTQ+ advocates, scholars, and students, and the policies of current administrators. This article reports on previously unexplored data from a larger grounded theory study on Christ-enlivened student affairs to answer the research question: How do SALs at Christian universities approach LGBTQ+ students in light of the Christian mission of their institutions? Data were collected using a qualitative questionnaire of 301 SALs, as well as extended interviews with 70 SALs. Participants' moral/theological responses included a collection of Christian virtues and rules. They indicated a range of helpful practices—including how they handled campus groups—but generally agreed on the dearth of training and education they had received on the topic. In our discussion, we compare our findings to the recommendations of previous scholars before elaborating our own list of recommendations. Our suggestions for Christian campuses include a re-imagined policy statement, a commitment to education rather than training, a focus on the spiritual needs of students, and some recommendations for LGBTQ+ campus groups.</p> <p>Keywords: LGBTQ+; sexuality; student affairs; Christian colleges</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The relationship between faith-based institutions and students who identify as LGBTQ+ has attracted considerable attention of late in Christian higher education scholarship (Coley, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]; Craig et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]; Slater, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]; Snow, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]; Tuttle, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]; Wentz & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]; Wolff et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]; Yarhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]; Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>]). This attention is understandable given that the relationship is one of the most contentious moral issues for CCCU institutions (Jaschik, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref14">13</reflink>]; Weber, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]). Most of the scholarly attention, however, has focused upon the students themselves.</p> <p>Given the way student affairs leaders (SALs) are trained to shape campus environments and culture (Reason & Broido, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]), and the effects of campus culture on LGBTQ+ students on Christian college campuses (Craig et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>]), it is interesting that so few studies regarding LGBTQ+ issues have been conducted on this population. Although understandable, the professionals tasked with caring for these students should not be neglected. Thus, in this article, we sought to examine the contemporary experience of the SALs who serve as the primary mediators between LGBTQ+ advocates', scholars', and students' desires and demands, and current administrators and administrative policies. We wanted to learn about the ways in which student affairs staff negotiate this relationship. This article reports on previously unexplored data from a larger grounded theory study on Christ-enlivened student affairs (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) to address the following research question: how do SALs at Christian universities approach LGBTQ+ students in light of the Christian mission of their institutions?</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-3">Literature Review</hd> <p>We know very little about the answer to our research question because much of the recent research on Christian higher education and the LGBTQ+ population has focused on listening to and understanding the lived experience of students identifying as sexual minorities (Coley, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]; Craig et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]; Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Snow, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]; Wentz & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]; Wolff et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>]; Yarhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref27">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref28">31</reflink>]; Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref29">34</reflink>]) or evaluating the collegiate outcomes for these students (Wolff & Hines, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]; Wolff et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]). Although a few of these studies touched upon the administrative responses of Christian colleges and universities or the legal issues involved (e.g., Coley, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]), we are aware of only one article that undertook a study of this area from the perspective of student affairs staff at Christian colleges and universities (Vespone, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]). Vespone's ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>]) article simply reported on the experiences of a staff member leading a support group on one campus.</p> <p>These studies of students do, however, reveal some important reasons why one should care about the response of SALs. Craig et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]) and Wolff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref37">27</reflink>]) found that LGBTQ+ students experienced a wide range of mental health difficulties related to individual stigma, interpersonal stigma, fear, isolation, marginalization, and reconciling their faith and sexual experiences. What efforts are SALs making to help these students?</p> <p>Because SALs will be the individuals communicating the administration's position, advising student groups, and conversing with sexual minorities in the residence halls, understanding their experience addressing students' unique needs is vitally important to understanding what currently is being done and what can be done in the future (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]). Although SALs within institutions affiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) are fairly theologically orthodox (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]), we do not know how those theological positions have led SALs to respond to LGBTQ+ students. Thus, we first need to build a theory about what they are doing to negotiate the relationship of LGBTQ+-identifying students and Christian college policies and administrations. We chose a grounded theory approach because, as Corbin and Strauss ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]) observed, "Since persons are varied in their responses, it is important to obtain multiple perspectives on events and to build variation into analytic schemes" (p. 28). We then used the concepts we discovered to build a theory.</p> <p>Still, no grounded theory moves forward without prior conceptual guideposts. As we coded our qualitative data, we did have in mind a certain normative framework that had been indicated by previous scholars. When it comes to admonitions related to student affairs practice, all of the scholars referenced above (Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref41">17</reflink>]; Wolff & Himes, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]; Wolff et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref43">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]) argued for SALs at Christian institutions to think about the needs of students who identify as LGBTQ+ in an ascending progression:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Ensure safety and freedom from harassment, bullying, and mistreatment.</item> <p></p> <item> Provide staff training and counseling resources in this area.</item> <p></p> <item> Address students' unique spiritual well-being.</item> <p></p> <item> Allow the identification of faculty and staff allies.</item> <p></p> <item> Allow LGBTQ+ groups to organize.</item> <p></p> <item> Allow LGBTQ+ advocacy.</item> </ulist> <p>As revealed by this list, they hoped for the increased care and spiritual development of these students. In addition, some of the scholars also hoped that administrators at Christian colleges would allow LGBTQ+ student groups to advocate for changing the current Christian sexual standards. In other words, we used these six admonitions as the suggested normative theoretical framework for practice and then evaluated the degree to which Christian SALs engaged in these practices. Furthermore, we examined why they (SALs), or their institution, do or do not use these normative perspectives and suggested activities.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-4">Method</hd> <p>This article is part of a larger grounded theory study exploring how Christianity informed the student affairs practice of Christian SALs (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]). The critical realist ontological commitments (e.g., Gorski, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref47">20</reflink>]) guiding the larger study led us to collect and analyze various forms of data in multiple stages. This approach provided us with the opportunity to allow participant responses to shape and define the next phase of inquiry at each stage of the process in accordance with the grounded theory process of theoretical sampling (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>For this article, we examined qualitative responses from interviews and questionnaire responses to questions related to sexual education, discussions about identity (in relation to sexuality), and LGBTQ+ topics that were not included in earlier publications. We analyzed these responses in light of a constructionist epistemology, which holds that the meaning humans make of their unique experiences is not created independently (Crotty, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref49">8</reflink>]). To explore the social construction of reality embedded within individual responses, we used an interpretivist theoretical approach (Crotty, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]). This approach provided the necessary framework for capturing the cultural and historical meanings situated within participants' individual constructions.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-5">Defining Our Population: Christian Colleges and Universities</hd> <p>Since the end of the twenty-first century, Benne's typology ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]) has emerged as the most sophisticated way to make sense of the developing differentiation between Christian colleges and universities that prioritize the Christian mission and paradigm, and church-related institutions that use a secular paradigm to organize their vision and ethos. Benne ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]) splits each of these two groups into two subgroups. Schools that still draw on the Christian vision are divided into what he terms: (a) Orthodox institutions and (b) Critical Mass institutions. Orthodox institutions, in Benne's words, "want to assure that the Christian account of life and reality is publicly comprehensively relevant to the life of the school by requiring that all adult members of the ongoing academic community subscribe to a statement of belief" (p. 50). Critical mass institutions do not insist on this point, but "they do insist that a critical mass of adherents from the tradition inhabit all the constituencies of the educational enterprise...." (p. 50). These first two types of schools clearly acknowledge their Christian identity and use it as a way to guide the school's functioning.</p> <p>The other two types of institutions, (c) Intentionally Pluralist and (d) Accidentally Pluralist, do not clearly acknowledge nor are guided by their Christian identity because they rely upon "the classical ideal of liberal education in which the rational process itself becomes the defining reality" (p. 51). Because it is primarily the first two groups that draw upon the Christian tradition and seek what we call Christ-enlivened student affairs practice, we used Glanzer and Robinson's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref53">11</reflink>]) empirical assessment of Protestant institution's rhetoric and policies related to sexuality using Benne's typology to determine which institutions to study. Overall, they found 192 Orthodox and Critical Mass institutions that served as the institutional limits for the SAL population of our study. The sample for the larger project and this present analysis consists of responses from well over 400 Christian student affairs leaders from over 55 unique institutions. Responses were collected in one of two ways—qualitative interviews and qualitative questionnaire responses.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-6">Qualitative Interviews: Recruitment, Participants, and Data Collection</hd> <p>We used purposive sampling strategies to identify interview participants (Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]; Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref55">7</reflink>]; see also Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]). We contacted SALs from orthodox and critical mass institutions who were attending one of two conferences, the 2018 International Forum of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) and the 2018 annual meeting of the Association for Christians in Student Development (ACSD) hosted by Biola University. Using lists of conference participants and our list of orthodox and critical mass institutions, we purposively invited SALs in various departments and at various levels of leadership from a variety of institutions (i.e., varying by size, selectivity, and region to reflect the general composition of Christian institutions) by email, phone, and in person. When we were able to interview a chief student affairs officer, we tried to interview some of their staff as well to see how vision was reflected in practice. We were able to interview additional staff for nine of the 19 chief student affairs officers we interviewed. Considering the relatively fewer number of SALs of color in these networks and at these institutions, we also intentionally sought out SALs of color to ensure their voices were represented in our data. Most of the participants we invited for an interview accepted, particularly at the ACSD conference where attendees were encouraged to participate in the study during an early plenary session. We guaranteed anonymity so that they could be totally honest about both the strengths and the shortcomings of Christian student affairs in general (including this subject).</p> <p>Participation in the interview was completely voluntary. Participants were provided with Institutional Review Board contact information prior to consenting so as to give them an opportunity to consider whether to participate. After verbal and written consent were obtained, participants were then asked a range of questions about the relationship between Christianity and student affairs that included questions regarding residence life, student conduct, student vocations, multicultural affairs, Title IX, sexual education, and LGBTQ+ issues. Overall, we conducted in-depth personal interviews with 70 student affairs professionals representing 44 Christian institutions (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Qualitative interview participants (<emph>n</emph> = 70).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Count</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">34</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td char=".">36</td></tr><tr><td>Race/Ethnicity</td><td>Count</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td char=".">61</td></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td>Asian American</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Role<sup>a</sup></td><td>Count</td></tr><tr><td>Director</td><td char=".">16</td></tr><tr><td>Vice President</td><td char=".">16</td></tr><tr><td>Dean</td><td char=".">12</td></tr><tr><td>Residence Director</td><td char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td>Assistant Director</td><td char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td>Associate Dean</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>Chief Diversity Officer</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>Coordinator</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>Faculty</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>Assistant Provost</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Associate Chaplain</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Chaplain</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Chief of Staff</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Chief Student Affairs Officer</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Senior Director</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Vice Provost</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Department<sup>b</sup></td><td>Count</td></tr><tr><td>Career/Vocation</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>Counseling Services</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Diversity/Multicultural Affairs</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>New Student Experience</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Residence Life</td><td char=".">22</td></tr><tr><td>Spiritual Life</td><td char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td>Student Activities</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>Student Conduct</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Student Engagement</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>Student Life</td><td char=".">28</td></tr><tr><td>Student Success</td><td char=".">2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: Several participants were in dual roles—e.g., Dean/Director, VP/Dean, Dean/Faculty—and were, therefore, reflected twice in the count.</p> <p>2 Note: Several participants were in dual roles that spanned different departments and were therefore reflected twice in the count.</p> <p>All of our participants identified as Christian. The questions were developed to explore how Christianity animates every aspect of student affairs (see Appendix). Prompts and probes were utilized when necessary to encourage elaboration of participants' experiences during the intensive interview. The interviews lasted approximately 45 to 90 minutes. The recorded interviews were then transcribed as part of the data analysis phase of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-7">Qualitative Questionnaire: Recruitment, Participants, and Data Collection</hd> <p>The second form of data collection involved an in-depth, 61-item questionnaire sent to all student affairs professionals at institutions within our population. The questionnaire was constructed to gather additional qualitative and quantitative data on topics similar to the interview guide. Questions about denominational identity and religious belief were derived from Rine et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref57">16</reflink>]) study of denominational identity in faculty populations. The questions for this study included qualitative responses to a host of questions about LGBTQ+ issues that arose in our qualitative interviews. The questionnaire was completed by 301 Christian student affairs professionals from 55 unique institutions. We have included a host of information on the demographic (see Table 2), educational (see Table 3), employment (Table 4), and religious (see Tables 5–7) backgrounds of our participants to help contextualize their comments related to sexuality and gender.</p> <p>Table 2. Demographic information of questionnaire participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender (<italic>n</italic> = 224)</td><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">102</td><td char=".">45.54%</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">122</td><td char=".">54.46%</td></tr><tr><td>Race/Ethnicity (<italic>n</italic> = 224)</td><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td> White</td><td char=".">201</td><td char=".">89.73%</td></tr><tr><td> Black or African American</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">4.46%</td></tr><tr><td> American Indian or Alaska Native</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.00%</td></tr><tr><td> Asian</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2.68%</td></tr><tr><td> Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.00%</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">3.13%</td></tr><tr><td>Age (<italic>n</italic> = 224<italic>)</italic></td><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td> 18 − 24</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">7.52%</td></tr><tr><td> 25 − 34</td><td char=".">84</td><td char=".">37.17%</td></tr><tr><td> 35 − 44</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">25.22%</td></tr><tr><td> 45 − 54</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">15.04%</td></tr><tr><td> 55 − 64</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">14.16%</td></tr><tr><td> 65 − 74</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">0.88%</td></tr><tr><td> 75+</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.00%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Educational backgrounds of questionnaire participants (<emph>n</emph> = 296).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Highest degree</td><td>Total count</td><td>% of selections</td><td>Faith-based by degree type</td><td>% Faith-based by degree type</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>BA</td><td char=".">86</td><td char=".">29%</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">80%</td></tr><tr><td>MA or MS</td><td char=".">146</td><td char=".">49%</td><td char=".">95</td><td char=".">65%</td></tr><tr><td>MBA</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">75%</td></tr><tr><td>MDIV</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">5%</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">87%</td></tr><tr><td>MFA</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr><tr><td>JD/MD</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr><tr><td>EDD</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">6%</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">63%</td></tr><tr><td>PhD</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">7%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">35%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Employment information of questionnaire participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Employment Status (<italic>n</italic> = 305)</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Full-Time</td><td char=".">270</td><td char=".">88.52%</td></tr><tr><td> Part-Time</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">7.87%</td></tr><tr><td> GA</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">3.61%</td></tr><tr><td>Rank/Position (some in dual roles) (<italic>n</italic> = 228)</td></tr><tr><td> Department Director</td><td char=".">70</td><td char=".">30.70%</td></tr><tr><td> Hall/Residence Director</td><td char=".">67</td><td char=".">29.39%</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td char=".">56</td><td char=".">24.56%</td></tr><tr><td> Assistant or Associate VP/Dean</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">14.04%</td></tr><tr><td> Assistant Director</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">9.65%</td></tr><tr><td> Office Admin</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">9.21%</td></tr><tr><td> VP of Student Life</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">7.02%</td></tr><tr><td> Title IX Coordinator</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">7.02%</td></tr><tr><td> Entry Level Coordinator</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">7.02%</td></tr><tr><td> Program Director</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">7.02%</td></tr><tr><td> Career/Vocation Services</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">6.14%</td></tr><tr><td> University Chaplain</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">5.70%</td></tr><tr><td> Graduate Assistant</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">4.82%</td></tr><tr><td> Diversity Officer</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">3.51%</td></tr><tr><td> Assistant Hall Director</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1.32%</td></tr><tr><td> Program Asst. Director</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1.32%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5. Theological traditions of questionnaire participants (<emph>n</emph> = 224).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Faith tradition</td><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Baptist</td><td char=".">43</td><td char=".">19%</td></tr><tr><td>Evangelical</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">19%</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">15%</td></tr><tr><td>Reformed</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">13%</td></tr><tr><td>Wesleyan</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">11%</td></tr><tr><td>Anabaptist</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">8%</td></tr><tr><td>Churches of Christ</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">5%</td></tr><tr><td>Pentecostal/Charismatic</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">5%</td></tr><tr><td>Anglican</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr><tr><td>Catholic</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2%</td></tr><tr><td>Lutheran</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2%</td></tr><tr><td>Eastern Orthodox</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 6. Beliefs about the Bible (<emph>n</emph> = 214).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>The Bible is the inspired Word of God, not mistaken in its statements and teachings, and is to be taken literally, word for word.</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">28.50%</td></tr><tr><td>The Bible is the inspired Word of God, not mistaken in its teachings, but is not always to be taken literally in its statements concerning matters of science, historical reporting, etc.</td><td char=".">127</td><td char=".">59.35%</td></tr><tr><td>The Bible becomes the Word of God for a person when he or she reads it in faith.</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">5.14%</td></tr><tr><td>The Bible is an ancient book of legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men.</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2.80%</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know.</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">4.21%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 7. Which one statement comes closest to your belief about salvation? (<emph>n</emph> = 216).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>%</td><td>Count</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Christ is the only source of salvation, and only believers in Christ will receive salvation.</td><td char=".">46.30%</td><td char=".">100</td></tr><tr><td>Christ is the only source of salvation, but God may ultimately offer salvation to those who have not yet heard about Christ.</td><td char=".">43.06%</td><td char=".">93</td></tr><tr><td>Christ is the only source of salvation, and all people will be saved through Christ.</td><td char=".">6.02%</td><td char=".">13</td></tr><tr><td>Christ is only one source of salvation, because many religions can lead to salvation.</td><td char=".">2.78%</td><td char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td>I don't believe in religious salvation.</td><td char=".">0.00%</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td char=".">1.85%</td><td char=".">4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0158319977-8">Analysis</hd> <p>We analyzed the qualitative material using the process outlined by our constructionist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>]; Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>]). Between each phase of data collection, we analyzed the data using initial coding (also called open coding) and comparative analysis (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]; Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]). Analyzing the data as we went enabled us to ask more precise questions to help expand the initial categories that had emerged from the data (theoretical sampling) (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>First, we engaged in initial coding to understand what was happening within the data; therefore, we focused on the actions and interactions taking place within the data between participants and their contexts (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>]; Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]). Second, we employed comparative analysis to form theoretical concepts that comprised an emergent category (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]; Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>]). Overall, we sought to construct categories and concepts that emerged from within the data, not from the preconceived perspectives of the researcher (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>]; see also Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-9">Methodological Integrity</hd> <p>Although many methods for evaluating the rigor and quality of grounded theory exist (Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref69">5</reflink>]), Charmaz ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]) has identified four criteria: (a) credibility, (b) originality, (c) resonance, and (d) usefulness (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>]; see also Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>]). The first, <emph>credibility</emph>, focuses on the believability of the research and its claims based on sufficient data collection and coherence of research design that yields an intimate familiarity with the topic and setting (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>]; see also Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]). We pursued credibility through a multiphased research design that allowed for robust theoretical sampling. The quantity and variety of data collected also allowed us to make "systematic comparisons between observations and between categories" (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>], p. 337). The second of the four criteria, <emph>originality</emph>, is used to evaluate whether the research offers fresh insight into an existing or previously unknown phenomenon (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>]; see also Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref77">5</reflink>]). We demonstrate originality by framing our findings in light of previous recommendations from the literature and discussing how our findings "challenge, extend, or refine [previous] ideas, concepts, and practices" (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>], p. 337). The third criterion, <emph>resonance</emph>, is used to distinguish whether the research explores a theoretical concept sufficiently and whether the findings and claims of the study make sense when compared to the data (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>]; see also Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]). Lastly, the fourth criterion, <emph>usefulness</emph>, is used to determine whether the research as a whole furthers pragmatist and/or conceptual aims (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]; see also Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>]). We sought to bolster the resonance and usefulness of our research through our iterative research design, a large number of participants (by qualitative standards), and by soliciting feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript from professionals working at Christian institutions in roles specifically tasked with helping students navigate sexuality, gender, and identity. The positive feedback we received included affirmations of our depiction of the landscape and the usefulness of our recommendations.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-10">Findings</hd> <p>To begin, we asked all our respondents the question: "How does your campus address students who identify as LGBTQ+?" Although, through this question, we inquired about campus responses to both sexuality and gender identity—a distinction important to those in this community (Rankin, et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref83">14</reflink>])—few of our participants made this distinction. As an unnamed reviewer pointed out, participant responses often only referred to sexuality and not to gender identity. As a result, as we describe our findings, even if a participant references LGBTQ+, we will use the term LGBQ (instead of LGBTQ+) in our analysis if that participant's comment discussed sexuality and not gender identity. If a participant's comment does not imply sexual or gender identity in particular, we will continue to use LGBTQ+ in our analysis, recognizing the similar needs faced by students questioning their sexuality and students questioning their gender identity.</p> <p>From the start, it was clear that staff members held a range of views. Understandably, some people and institutions tend to avoid controversy. We found it unsurprising that 15% of our respondents gave us answers indicating a lack of engagement with the topic (e.g., "Honestly... I can't say we address them very well, at least in my understanding;" "We do not address them enough. We often avoid the issues or give simplistic answers;" "I feel like that's something that's not talked about, really, at all. So more of, what do they call it? A taboo, more like a taboo topic."). Another 5% were not even sure of their policy or programming. Overall, at least one-fifth of SALs we queried indicated a lack of engagement with conversations surrounding sexual identity.</p> <p>The other 80% of respondents engaged sexuality between two opposing poles. On the progressive end of the spectrum, one SAL noted that their institution is: "Welcoming. Affirming. Asking for pronouns," and another person indicated that at their institution, "Students will not go through a conduct process for being in a same-sex relationship," despite the institution's stance "that marriage is between a man and a woman." One SAL also said, "We have a GSA (gay-straight alliance) on campus and are taught to respect free choice for all." On the other end of the spectrum, at least one campus does not allow students who identify as LGBTQ+ to be admitted to the institution. The SAL at this institution explained:</p> <p>Our goal is to assist students in their identification with Jesus Christ and the instruction set forth in the Bible regarding human sexuality. We would view one's identification as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transsexual/queer as incompatible with the biblical standards for sexuality; such students are not admitted.</p> <p>In light of the range of views and host of tensions, it is not surprising that numerous SALs felt caught in the middle. As one SAL at a denominationally affiliated institution told us, "You've got a denomination who says, 'That's sinful.' Yet, I've got a student body, some of which are saying, 'Hey, we've been able to rationalize this in a Christian ethic to say it's very appropriate for my partner and I to get married and to engage in a homosexual lifestyle and live that very openly.'" How did they and their institutions respond to this tension? The following headings provide some of the codes we discovered.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-11">Current Moral/Theological Responses to LGBTQ+ Identifying Students</hd> <p>First, we examine how SALs responded to the tension from their moral and theological perspective. We describe the virtues or rules with which they responded to LGBTQ+ students and the bases they supplied for those virtues and rules. We found the moral/theological responses of staff tended to fit into three larger categories: (a) the priority of virtues, (b) the theological basis for virtues, and (c) sexual identity and sexual rules.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-12">The Priority of Virtues</hd> <p>Similar to some of the scholars mentioned in the literature review, Christian SALs also emphasized the practice of particular virtues. In other words, although respondents did occasionally mention a rule or policy related to harassment (e.g., "We do not tolerate harassment against this community"), they actually went much further to emphasize virtues over rules. They emphasized a common posture that focuses on love, care, welcome, and acceptance within the community. The most common virtues included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Love (<emph>n</emph> = 19) "We address all students with love and grace regardless of sexual orientation."</item> <p></p> <item> Care (<emph>n</emph> = 11) "With love, care, and honesty."</item> <p></p> <item> Welcoming (<emph>n</emph> = 11) "You are welcome here; let's talk about it."</item> <p></p> <item> Respectfully (<emph>n</emph> = 9) "As respectfully as possible."</item> <p></p> <item> Accepting (<emph>n</emph> = 8) "Accepting and open."</item> <p></p> <item> Supportive (<emph>n</emph> = 6) "Respected, supportive, not allowed to act on feelings on-campus."</item> <p></p> <item> Fair/Equal (<emph>n</emph> = 3) "Fairly and equally."</item> <p></p> <item> Hospitality (<emph>n</emph> = 2) "In a spirit of hospitality without condoning behavior."</item> <p></p> <item> Grace (<emph>n</emph> = 2) "We address all students with love and grace regardless of sexual orientation."</item> </ulist> <p>The following extended response illustrates this type of virtue response in a more thorough description:</p> <p>Caring is that key word: We truly care about the other human. If that other human is walking down a sidewalk and she's a female and she's holding another female's hand and you can tell that they are obviously in a relationship – what does a caring Christian community do? I think all they can do, theoretically, is surround [them] with love and acceptance in hopes that maybe we could have conversations with them and let them naturally come to the conclusions of their own ethics of what is right and wrong in our faith.</p> <p>Overall, the Virtue Responders thought that the Christian response to LGBTQ+ students should be one characterized by virtues such as love, care, and welcoming versus one that starts by discussing particular moral rules regarding sexual behavior or gender identity. They saw this approach as teaching both Christian virtue and accomplishing the establishment of a safe environment. As one SAL noted, "It's been very encouraging to see that our LGBTQ students, so far, feel relatively safe on our campus and that's been encouraging, but recognizing that if we want them to feel just as much a part, then we need to continue to grow."</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-13">The Theological Basis for Virtues</hd> <p>If SALs mentioned a theological basis for these virtues, they almost always linked it to a particular theological anthropology regarding human personhood—that all students have dignity, are made in God's image, and/or are children of God (e.g., "We are accepting of such students, as we are all God's children."). Below are three different examples where a SAL drew on one of these concepts:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "If we are given the privilege of knowing someone in this community, we love them, respect them, and treat them with the dignity and honor that a robust theology of creation demands."</item> <p></p> <item> We are "clear on how the behavior does not match the biblical worldview—yet also viewing the individual as a child of God worthy of love, mercy, and respect."</item> <p></p> <item> "We address them with care—they are students, they are humans, they have full lives (and needs) beyond their sexual identity, and they are beloved image bearers of God. They may be more vulnerable in some areas than other students, and we take this seriously."</item> </ulist> <p>In these cases, the SALs saw the practice of particular virtues as emanating from a creation-oriented theology that understands students as more than their sexual or gender identity, even if they saw that identity as an expression of the sin that entered the world after Creation.</p> <p>In only two cases did SALs refer to Jesus' model of His character when caring for the least of these:</p> <p>It should be talked about as a way for us to care about people and help people come along, not as a way for us to make sure that we're checking off a box or that we're making sure that we're talking about it, but only when it's about sin. So, I think a lot of those students are not feeling like they're involved, or they have to be hidden their entire time while they're here and can't flourish. So, I think the Bible should be influencing us in that we need to care for these populations that are, and Jesus would qualify, as the "least of these" [Mt. 25:40] as in how they're viewed, especially at conservative Christian institutions.</p> <p>In this response, the SAL likened the lack of belonging LGBTQ+ students felt within a conservative context to be "the least of these" which is equating them with the "sick," "hungry," or imprisoned that the "King" in the Matthew parable tells others to serve. Interestingly, only one participant referenced the importance of students' identity in Christ (i.e., "We spend a lot of time talking about our identity being in Christ").</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-14">Identity and Sexual Rules</hd> <p>The reality that some SALs understood a theologically informed human identity and the Christian identity as one's primary identities creates questions regarding sexual and gender identity. How did SALs understand students who identify as LGBTQ+? Despite the one example of a school not accepting students who identify as LGBTQ+, the other SALs who directly addressed the identity question noted that their campuses did not have any rules against identifying as LGBTQ+ (e.g., "You can identify, but you can't practice"; "Identity as such is ok—acting out is not"). The implication was that those who identified with these sexual identities were to remain celibate and those questioning their gender identity could continue to do so, but would not begin any sort of physical transition process.</p> <p>Thus, in addition to virtues, this set of SALs combined their emphasis on practicing virtues with students who identify as LGBTQ+ with an articulation and enforcement of what they saw as biblical standards regarding behavior (e.g., "Loving conversation and challenge to biblical standards"). In these cases, love, care, welcoming, and similar virtues were defined in a way that did not include acceptance of particularly LGBQ sexual behavior:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Love them. Live the Gospel in front of them. Answer their questions without condemnation. No faltering to be politically correct."</item> <p></p> <item> "Everyone is welcome but certain behavior is not."</item> <p></p> <item> "Promoting care and love while holding to a traditional biblical view of marriage."</item> </ulist> <p>What were the specific rules regarding "behavior" or "acting out"? SALs mentioned two rules they enforced. One rule applied to all students (e.g., "We expect students not to engage in sexual acts outside of the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman."). Occasionally, SALs made a point to emphasize that this standard pertained to all students:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Because we would ask that all students refrain from sexual intimacy outside of marriage while they are enrolled in our university (this policy is for both same-sex-attracted and heterosexual-attracted)."</item> <p></p> <item> "We ask that LGBTQ+ students abide by the same values that cis and straight students are asked to abide by: abstinence before marriage."</item> </ulist> <p>When an emphasis was placed on the similar position of all students, the training given to staff and faculty followed the same approach. One SAL described their method:</p> <p>The rule of thumb that we're attempting to give, particularly to staff, faculty who may not understand, is we're training them the same as we would in a heterosexual student. We don't scold heterosexual students for holding hands or dating. We don't call them out or embarrass them. But we do have conversations with them if they engage in sex outside of marriage. That's what we would do for any LGBTQ student.</p> <p>In this case, SALs claimed that they were treating all students equally regardless of sexual orientation.</p> <p>In a number of cases, however, SALs also indicated that their institutions did not support same-sex marriage (e.g., "We welcome all students, regardless of orientation or identity. However, our policies do not support same-sex marriage."). As a result, the Christian institutions in these examples had an additional rule for LGBQ+ students that did not allow them to be "sexually expressive" or in "same-sex dating" relationships.</p> <p>Finally, one SAL noted an additional rule at their institution: "We do not allow students who identify in these ways to be involved in any kind of leadership." This staff member was the only one to mention that particular rule. In contrast, another SAL noted that students who identify as LGBTQ+ but adhere to the campus rules regarding sexual behavior were welcome to take leadership roles. This SAL noted:</p> <p>For instance, I had a student who, my first year, came in as a freshman and wanted to apply to be an RA, but was openly gay. He was not practicing at all. He knew that this was his orientation, had never been in a relationship with a man, and asked me, "Would it discount me from being able to be an RA because of the fact that I'm gay?" I told him, "Absolutely not." He's about to start his third year as an RA with me, and he's one of the best guys I've ever worked with. He, over time, has told all of his residents, throughout the year, eventually–once he's gotten to know them and built a relationship with them–he has opened up to them and come out to them. ... [S]ince I've hired him, I have not had a single issue. Obviously, nothing disciplinary with him, or I would not have re-hired him, but also no one has come to me and said, "I'm uncomfortable with this," or "I disagree with this."</p> <p>Overall, most SALs mentioned that their institutions allow students to identify as LGBTQ+, and that they seek to treat those students with a particular set of caring character qualities. A minority of SALs also articulated a clear theologically based reason for practicing these virtues. In addition, SALs generally pointed out that their standards for sexual behavior, in one respect, were the same for all students: no sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman. Two areas of disagreement appeared to be whether same-sex dating and physical expression were prohibited, and whether students who identify as LGBTQ+ could serve in leadership.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-15">Range of Practices</hd> <p>In addition to their moral and theological responses, we also heard a range of practical responses. SALs' perceptions of the practices in which their institution and fellow staff engaged varied according to how they might address LGBTQ+ students.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-16">Providing Counseling but Longing for Training</hd> <p>As mentioned earlier, one of the clear requests made by scholars has been to provide staff training and counseling resources. We did not find any staff who thought their institution lacked counseling resources, as indicated by their responses when we asked what their institutions practically offer in this area:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Counseling that allows full processing of identity and related issues."</item> <p></p> <item> "The avenue for discussion/support is a support group offered through Counseling Services, as well as individual services offered there."</item> <p></p> <item> "If they are not practicing in any form, students who identify are offered counseling."</item> <p></p> <item> "We work with them individually, particularly through counseling, and ask that they commit to the code of conduct, abstaining from sexual activity while they are a student."</item> </ulist> <p>In contrast, we did find a number of SALs who thought they or their staff and faculty needed "more training in helping students who identity as LGBTQ." Some of these comments included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Our faculty should be beginning to be trained in how to talk with students who are struggling with their sexuality."</item> <p></p> <item> "Acknowledgement of LGBTQ+ students and training on how to support them."</item> <p></p> <item> "Training on how to deal with students who identify as LGBTQ+."</item> <p></p> <item> "Mainly how to welcome and care for members of the LGBTQ+ community (students and staff/faculty)."</item> </ulist> <p>Interestingly, only one SAL mentioned their campus "provide[s] training for RAs and hall directors on how to respond when they are told someone is LGBTQ to be sure they respond in line with the college['s] stance and not their personal views." In general, it would appear that SALs only fulfill half of the recommendations of scholars in that they provided counseling, but inadequate training.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-17">Creating Liaisons, Mentors, or Allies</hd> <p>Another recommendation from scholars mentioned in the literature review is to allow the identification of faculty and staff allies. Because "allies" can be an ambiguous term that does not always indicate the exact type of support being offered, it is not surprising we only encountered one use of this term: "Many faculty/staff are allies, and I'm sure there are also those who are opposed." Instead, we found Christian institutions tended to use other types of language to describe the type of special staff support they offered to LGBTQ+ students. Below were some of the terms and types of staff support offered mentioned by SALs:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Safe spaces": "Our school has identified various people on campus as 'safe places'."</item> <p></p> <item> "Peer mentors": "Staff who are same-sex-attracted and choose to follow traditional Christian view of sexuality."</item> <p></p> <item> "Mentors": "We assist them with living well in the community if they want our help. We support their identity exploration and provide lots of support through one-on-one mentoring, guidance, etc. if desired."</item> <p></p> <item> "Pastoral" help: "We seek to enter into relationship with them, to know them, to be pastoral with them and to learn from them."</item> <p></p> <item> "Liaison": "[Students receive attention] through my office with the LGBTQ liaison."</item> </ulist> <p>Clearly, many campuses wanted to avoid the charged and perhaps ambiguous term "allies."</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-18">The Most Controversial and Diverse Practice: Forming Unique Groups</hd> <p>According to the range of SALs from which we heard, the decision whether or not to permit an official LGBTQ+ group was the most controversial campus issue related to sexual and gender identity. Two SALs articulated a longing for a "support group for LGBTQ+" or "[s]upport groups that are endorsed by the school that have no agenda to 'save' anyone." As the last comment reveals, the source of the controversy arose from the fact that different people involved had various understandings about what the purpose of such a group is or should be. Was the group meant to be a safe-space for group processing, an educational group, a time to address students' unique spiritual needs, or an advocacy group? Or was it perhaps a combination of some or all of these things? These four possible purposes were all mentioned by SALs. In addition to determining a purpose for such a group, SALs also mentioned disagreement about whether these initiatives should be student-, staff-, or faculty-led (or some combination).</p> <p>The majority of SALs that had groups on campus saw their purpose primarily as safe processing groups, as the following quotes reveal:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "There is a group for students to meet together and talk, process, support, etc. While there is a policy that a student can't participate in sexual LGBTQ behaviors, there is a lot of grace and space for students who identify as such."</item> <p></p> <item> "We have a university-sanctioned processing group that's open to any students who are wrestling with and exploring their own same-sex attractions or identity as LGBTQ people. The goal is to care for and support, not to penalize students or try to make them change."</item> </ulist> <p>In these types of cases, the SALs understood the group as trying to walk a line expressed by this participant: "So, it's not conversion therapy; it's also not supporting a lifestyle, as well, but really just an opportunity for processing." Overall, the most common language was to describe the groups as a "safe space" for "processing" questions of belonging and identity. For example, one SAL used these terms when discussing the purpose of the group that had been created on campus. They shared how two campus leaders started a private group for LGBTQ+ students:</p> <p>We want this to be a safe space where you can process those things. And we're not going to change the biblical truth that we believe within that time, but we do want students to have a time and a space to process through those things.</p> <p>Similar to the above quote, another SAL discussed the challenge of clarifying the nature of such a group:</p> <p>Someone from the community got a hold of that email that was intended for internal publication and put it on [our denominational] Facebook page and created a firestorm around it. ... It just exploded from there, which was not truth. So, we've been working... with that group of how to address what this is about... My response back was, "We welcome all students. We have an obligation to support all of our students and to do it with an ethic that we believe Christ has called us to, which is to love and to serve and to help challenge them and walk alongside of them. Even if we don't believe everything that they do, that we need to offer that ethic of care and concern for every one of our students."</p> <p>Interestingly, if a campus had a group of this kind, the SALs hardly ever mentioned that the purpose was to foster students' unique spiritual well-being (something previous scholars have suggested should happen; see Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]). SALs only linked the group to spiritual ends twice, with one campus having a Bible study for LGBTQ+-identifying students and another campus having "a faculty/staff-advised, student-led group designed to provide a 'safe space' for students to gather for conversation, Scripture study, and community." Another SAL mentioned they had a "Community group for these students led by [the] campus pastor." In light of the mission of these institutions and the specific recommendation by scholars to address the spiritual needs of LGBTQ+ students (e.g., Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref85">17</reflink>]; Wolff et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref86">27</reflink>]), we considered these results odd and unexpected. To be fair, it is possible that the majority of SALs who saw their group primarily as a safe place to process likely understood this function to meet a spiritual need as well. Still, they did not articulate it.</p> <p>In addition, we only found one SAL who talked about the educational purpose of such a group (e.g., "We offer a group for advocates, learning, and information."). Furthermore, only two SALs mentioned that the groups included or allowed LGBQ advocacy (e.g., "We have a GSA [gay-straight alliance] on campus and are taught to respect free choice for all"). Of course, this last point is unsurprising in light of the theological position of most of these schools. One SAL talked about the concern in creating an unrecognized student group that was staff-facilitated:</p> <p>We have a group of students that have who wanted to start a support group for LGBTQ students. And administratively, we just weren't able to do that at that time. So, I kind of went back in and asked for permission, "Can I meet with them off the books, so to speak?".... We can't just say, "We don't want to talk to you." It just doesn't make sense. So, we were able to work it out at that point.... what people get really nervous and is like, "Are you supporting them to be this way?" I'm like, "No, no, I just want to support them. I just want them to feel safe. I just want them to have people they can talk to." You know? I'm not worried about students wanting to work for social change.</p> <p>One can see the difficulty of the language used in discussing these groups, as the previous quote exemplifies two different types of support. In this case, the SAL wanted to support authentic conversations about this topic without advocating for behavior or making it a place for changing one's sexual desires or gender identities.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-19">Wanted but Only Occasionally Provided: Christian Discussion and Education</hd> <p>In addition to a lack of training for staff and faculty and a need for groups that focus on spiritual well-being, we saw one more scholarly recommendation that had gone unaddressed in this area (Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>]; Wolff et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref88">27</reflink>]). A number of SALs identified it as a need, but often saw that it was missing. The irony is that this desired element relates directly to the purpose of the institution: they wanted Christian conversation and education about the issue. Below are a few of these articulated hopes:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Talking about [LGBTQ+] is still faux pas. I'd love to see us tackle this more openly and courageously."</item> <p></p> <item> "Addressing it in general more so for those who identify in the LGBTQIA+ community. There is a lot of fear addressing this."</item> <p></p> <item> "We need to have more public conversations about the experiences of sexual minorities on campus. Unfortunately, such conversations are not really allowed because of the political fall-out from the conservative community."</item> <p></p> <item> "We are not serving our students by avoiding the entire topic or pushing them into the conduct process. We should at least be able to have an open conversation with students on this topic area, not just cut that portion of their lives out of it."</item> </ulist> <p>In particular, many SALs indicated that they thought their campuses lacked a theological or holistic conversation about the issue:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "We still haven't really gotten into the LGBTQ+ conversation in as much of a holistic manner as I would have hoped."</item> <p></p> <item> "Allowing students to openly discuss LGBTQ+ issues. There is no forum for discussion or presenting various theologies addressing it."</item> <p></p> <item> "I believe that we can always do better within the conversation of the LGBTQ+ community and how it relates to multiple faith perspectives."</item> </ulist> <p>One would expect that Christian <emph>educational</emph> institutions would be the best at addressing this issue from a theological and educational perspective, which according to our findings does not appear to be the case except in rare instances. For example, one SAL noted, "It's been really cool to see that our chapel speakers have been really trying to be more and more open about including that in the conversation. We've had multiple chapels about sexual identity, sexual practices, and stuff like that." Of course, chapels are usually unidirectional in nature unless they involve panel discussions.</p> <p>In our 70 extended qualitative interviews, we did encounter two broader educational examples that stood out from the rest—one led by staff and one organized by students—which demonstrated a broad and sophisticated Christian educational approach to this issue. The first example came from a vice president of student life who talked about providing a broad Christian education:</p> <p>When I discuss the ethics of same-sex relationships, I ask "How do different Christians think about this issue?" I answer that question using a "three Cs" model. Historically Christians have held to many different views. But on our campus, the most common ones are: Change, Celebration, or Celibacy.... When I present on these views, I describe them as charitably as I can, talk about the representatives of this view, and then show an example video, saying "here's a life that highlights this perspective." Then I do a cross-positioned critique of it. "So, what do people in the Celebration camp think about Change? What do people in the Celibacy camp think about Change?" I go through that same description and cross-position critique for all three perspectives. It works pretty well.... I end with Celibacy, because it's really [our institution's] model. Our policies are not about people's attractions. If we had to begin disciplining people for disordered desires, then we'd all be in trouble, right? But our policies are about behavior. So, then there would be no reason why someone who is same-sex attracted, committed to following what we understand to be God's call for sexuality, wouldn't be in a leadership position. What better model of discipleship would you have out there than someone making a hard choice like that?</p> <p>We find this approach a helpful example of what might be considered basic liberal arts theological education about how Christians approach LGBQ issues. It seeks to help students and staff understand different approaches and how to critique them from different perspectives.</p> <p>The second example was also described by a vice president for student life, but it was a bit more multifaceted and student-led. They called their group "SAGE" (Sexuality and Gender Education). The mission and purpose of the group is to have "these conversations in a Christ-centered and biblically-informed manner." As a result, there is clarity that the institution "holds a privileged perspective on marriage being between one man and one woman." At the time of the interview, the group contained three components: "One is SAGE Care, which is about individual and group holistic care and support." In other words, this part dealt with the counseling and virtues aspects. The second area is called SAGE Prism which "is specifically focused on learning and fellowship around the topics and matters of LGBTQ students." What is unique about this focus is that it is inclusive of all kinds of students— "students who are affirming but also students who maybe hold a more traditional view of [gender and] marriage"—and provides a place for education that is outside the classroom and allows for the cultivation of deeper peer relationships. Finally, the third area is SAGE Events, "which is more broad programming on sexuality and gender topics for the whole campus," providing for an additional layer of whole-campus educational programming. She further noted, "A student leader is responsible for each of the three areas. Each area also has an educator as an advisor. So the student leaders work closely with the educator advisor."</p> <p>The vice president of student life commented that SAGE also provided a great educational opportunity for the students who led it. She noted:</p> <p>I was really proud of our student leaders who were part of this, because two students helped start it [and] they graduated, and then we had two new students coming in working with this and both of whom identified as LGBTQ, and it was really interesting to watch them develop as leaders of these conversations, even when they're bringing their own strong bias to these conversations—watching them be able to set aside that bias in order to foster and facilitate gracious conversations around these topics. It was just really, really good.</p> <p>Notably, the program contained a strong educational component that took into account the multiple perspectives that exist within the Christian community.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-20">Limitations and Delimitations</hd> <p>Before our discussion, we must note one limitation and two delimitations of our data and findings. First, because few comprehensive studies of Christian SALs have been done, we employed a census-style approach to interview and questionnaire sampling to yield as much data and participants as possible. Consequently, the data do not reflect all Christian SALs, yet we added as much descriptive contextual data as possible to aid in the determination as to whether or not particular findings are generalizable to Christian SALs not included here. The first delimitation of our study was the fact that we did not collect data about our participants own journeys with gender and sexuality. Although these data would have added additional insight into our findings, our questions focused on their campus environment from a standard Christian point of view, a point of view that we may not have obtained had we asked for their personal background. Additionally, we did not believe such questions would have been appropriate given the context of the conferences and the public settings in which we interviewed participants. The second delimitation worth noting for our study was the choice not to emphasize differences between individual institutions and contexts. We acknowledge these differences exist, but, because little study had been done about Christian SALs as a whole we chose to start by describing the field as a whole.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-21">Discussion and Implications for Practice</hd> <p>In this section, we build upon previous scholarly recommendations that were derived from the experiences of students (Rockenbach & Crandall, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref89">17</reflink>]; Wolff et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref90">27</reflink>]). We propose a revised set of suggestions for Christian campuses in light of our findings from the experiences of SALs and our commitment to a theologically grounded Christian ethic. We recognize that SALs usually do not have the power or influence to make some of the changes suggested; therefore, some of our suggestions will require coordination with—and decisions from—executive leadership and administration.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-22">Ensure Safety and Freedom from Harassment</hd> <p>Our first recommendation is obvious, but bears repeating. Institutions must ensure the physical safety and freedom from harassment, bullying, and mistreatment for all students. The fact that humans are created in the image of God means that no amount of difference between the institution's position and the position of a particular member of the community (i.e., faculty, staff, or student) could warrant mistreatment. To be clear about our recommendations here, safety refers to freedom from physical harm by oneself or another and harassment refers to malicious verbal attacks intended to malign the dignity or reputation of another person as a result of some characteristic, belief, or conviction. Harassment here does not include an institution holding students accountable to community standards. Christians are called to love and defend the dignity of others because to do so is to love and defend the dignity of the image of God in them.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-23">Re-Imagine Institutional Position Statements</hd> <p>Our next recommendations are grounded in our belief in the value of forthright and engaging communication. We found that staff were not always aware of important resources on this topic. Thus, we recommend that institutions make time to train staff and students on the institutions' position on sexuality and gender and equip them to positively respond in light of that position (e.g., make them aware of the range of campus resources).</p> <p>It is possible that SALs felt uninformed about existing resources because institutional trainings and resources were not particularly positive or engaging. Our participants communicated a praiseworthy desire to focus on positive Christian virtues, a focus that many felt was lacking in overly formal policy or position statements. Therefore, we agree with one of our participants who suggested that institutions should go beyond, and re-imagine, existing theologically informed position statements on issues of sexuality and gender. We suggest that this kind of re-imagined theologically informed position statement should include the following: (a) the institution's view of marriage and the proper context for sexual relationships; (b) the institution's theological basis for why we treat others with virtue (i.e., everyone is made in God's image); (c) the institution's view of sexuality and gender identity, and the importance of treating those who identify as LGBTQ+ with Christian virtue; (d) the institution's sexual conduct standards; and (e) clarity on the institution's stance on whether someone who identifies as LGBTQ+ can hold a leadership position. Such a statement would provide guidance for training staff in how to approach these issues.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-24">Educate Faculty, Staff, and Students</hd> <p>Our next recommendation is based on an element we found missing from many scholarly recommendations and Christian college campuses—Christian <emph>education</emph> about sexuality and gender identity. Previous recommendations cited in the literature review mention the need to <emph>train</emph> staff, but we contend that education and training are not exactly equivalent. Training involves teaching someone one particular way to do things (e.g., we potty-train our children); but education entails giving someone a broad understanding of a topic (e.g., we inform, educate, and develop college students, staff, and faculty). Numerous SALs we interviewed talked about the need for this theologically informed type of education. For example, one of the only SALs to mention that she did receive education about the issue found that education limited:</p> <p>Our campus educates us on how to handle things from a professional standpoint, but not a spiritual one. I have not yet seen any seminar given to staff members on how to handle a student who is struggling with their sexuality.</p> <p>In light of this need, we recommend SALs work to expand their <emph>education</emph> in this area. At the very least, such education will equip SALs to speak with more nuance and prevent scholars from being able to make the overly simplistic claim that, "Students in religious schools are taught that being LGBTQ means the severance of a spiritual relationship" (Craig et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref91">6</reflink>], p. 13). We offered two examples of the theological education we have in mind earlier in our findings, although we think there are multiple venues in which this education could take place. Furthermore, this theological education needs to be supplemented by medical and psychological education in these areas.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-25">Address the Unique Spiritual Needs of LGBTQ+ Students</hd> <p>We will reiterate the scholarly recommendation to address the unique spiritual needs of LGBTQ+ students. Indeed, one of our astounding and disturbing findings was the lack of clarity about whether or not institutions were meeting this need. For example, one SAL noted, "We encourage them to live single, celibate lives and to receive care. We don't have any groups for them, however." This approach fails to acknowledge that the single, celibate life is a unique calling that needs particular types of support and that the rest of the student body could learn from what Yarhouse and Zaporozhets ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref92">33</reflink>]) described with their book title as <emph>Costly Obedience</emph>. One of the best ideas we found was mentioned by another SAL, "Recently, our school started a Bible study specifically for students who identify as LGBTQ." We think a Bible study such as this one, co-led by a staff or faculty member, would address those unique needs, but it would also require that the group think about their needs in light of the larger Christian story. Furthermore, it would also prioritize the Christian identity as the focus of the group. Thus, we would re-articulate our recommendation this way: Provide spiritual resources and programming (e.g., mentors, Bible studies) tailored to the unique needs of those who identify as LGBTQ+ and yet seek to live in accordance with a traditional sexual ethic.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-26">Use New Language to Identify Supportive Faculty and Staff</hd> <p>Next, we think the advice to identify faculty and staff "allies" needs to be modified to better fit a Christian context. Unfortunately, many of the terms we heard in our interviews were no clearer than "allies." One of the terms is clearly mismatched (e.g., calling a person a "space"). Furthermore, identifying "mentors" says nothing about the substance of the mentoring being offered. Perhaps a clearer term is "advisor" or "confidant," because it does not imply agreement or disagreement between the two parties and provides clear communication regarding the responsibility of that SAL. Thus, we would recommend institutions allow the identification of faculty and/or staff advisors and/or confidants.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-27">Establish Clear Purposes and Boundaries for Campus Groups and Organizations</hd> <p>Finally, we have several recommendations regarding LGBQ+ groups on campus. One of the important elements missing from current scholarly recommendations and practice is acknowledgement that there can be different purposes for LGBQ+ groups, and that it is vitally important that these purposes are made clear and boundaries are kept. Additionally, we think it would be most consistent with the mission of the institution if these groups not only have a student processing purpose, but also if they have an educational and spiritual component (perhaps different sessions where the emphasis is clear). We do not think that LGBQ+ groups should be springboards for advocacy groups that promote one particular position that contradicts the procedure and policy document (as described previously) the institution develops. For instance, at one of our SAL's institutions, the LGBQ+ group was presented as a place for processing, but its activities included various forms of suggested advocacy, such as "marching at gay-pride parades." Students need to know the type and purpose of group they are attending and the boundaries of the group's activities. If a group for LGBQ+ students is established on campus, its purpose, scope, and activities should be made clear.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-28">Recommendations for Future Research</hd> <p>Future studies could provide greater depth than the scope of our study allowed. This depth could be achieved in in both current practice and effectiveness. The former could be studied through case study analyses of campuses known for their distinctively Christian approach to LGBTQ+ students. Additionally, a sociological lens could explore the organizational tensions SALs face at various levels of the organizational chart. The latter, effectiveness of current programs, would be best studied through longitudinal data. A study of this nature would, of course, require the field to first settle on what outcome or set of outcomes such programs cultivate. For this reason, we also recommend that future study help determine the ends toward which our studies are aimed. We believe that our metrics should aim toward a positive vision for LGBTQ+ students like the one presented in measures of thriving (Schreiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref93">18</reflink>]) or the scales and methods used in a recently published study on faith and character (Dougherty et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>]). To what extent do our programs help LGBTQ+ students thrive and build faith and character?</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-29">Conclusion</hd> <p>There is no doubt that the politicization of sexuality and gender makes conversations heated and challenging. But, we agree with a SAL who suggested, "...Christian student affairs is at its best when it steps into the really hard and messy places that most of their colleagues on their campus are afraid to step into... I think that's really where Christian student affairs shines—when they step into that and say, 'No, we're going to enter into this space and have a conversation about it'." By stepping into the fray, Christian SALs can address the unique needs of students who are often avoided or seen as outcasts on a Christian campuses, while also serving the campus as a whole by modeling the paradox of Christian care and conviction.</p> <hd id="AN0158319977-30">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158319977-31">Student Affairs Best Practices</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158319977-32">Interview Document</hd> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-33">Intro Material</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Obtain consent</item> <p></p> <item> Name, title, and institution</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-34">Background and Training</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What motivated you to work in student affairs?</item> <p></p> <item> Please describe your training and background for student affairs. (If did not mention) How, if at all, were you trained to integrate faith into your student affairs practice? IF VP OF STUDENT LIFE, THIS WAS ALREADY ASKED ON THE SURVEY</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-35">Best Practices of Student Affairs Professionals at Christian Colleges and Universities</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What do you hope to see in your students at graduation?</item> <p></p> <item> In your experience what helps students flourish during higher education? In what specific ways does Christianity contribute to this flourishing? ANY AREA</item> <p></p> <item> What makes your student affairs practice <emph>Christian?</emph> ANY AREA</item> <p></p> <item> What do you think is the greatest strength of student development at your institution?</item> <p></p> <item> What would you list as a top "best practice" of student affairs professionals at Christian colleges and universities?</item> <p></p> <item> Can you think of a story from your experience that gets at the heart of a Christian approach to student development?</item> <p></p> <item> Where do you think are the opportunities for growth in student development in Christian colleges and universities?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-36">Comparisons</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do your student affairs practices compare to the stated best practices in national student affairs organizations and associations?</item> <p></p> <item> Whose ideas or what scholars have influenced your work in student affairs? If secular ask, "How does Christianity influence those ideas?"</item> <p></p> <item> What have you read lately that informs your work?</item> <p></p> <item> What critiques do you have of current student development theories? Which ones do you embrace and use to guide your practice?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-37">Theological Lens</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What does it look like to integrate theological discussions with your staff? For example, do you discuss how God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, Sin and salvation, Discipleship, Sanctification, etc. might influence student affairs practice?</item> <p></p> <item> How does your institution support the Christian formation of employees in general?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-38">For RDs and Those in Student Activities</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What programming do you do that enhances the Christian mission of the college/university? (if they do not give one, ask for specific examples)</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-39">Discipline: For VPs, RDs, and Others Who Discipline</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Can you tell me about your process for student discipline regarding nonacademic issues? How does faith inform the construction of that process?</item> <p></p> <item> If you had the power to immediately implement one new program or policy or to change an existing policy to improve your discipline policy what would it be and why? What do you need to make this policy or program a reality?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-40">Drinking</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Can you tell me about how your campus communicates its stance regarding alcohol consumption? Follow-up: How does Christian faith inform the message and process regarding how you handle underage drinking?</item> <p></p> <item> If you had the power to implement one new program or change an existing policy or program in this area, what would it be and why? What would be needed to make this policy or program a reality?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-41">Sexuality</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What efforts are being made by your institution to educate students regarding sexual identity and practice? (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> How does Christian faith inform your personal professional response to issues related to sexuality (e.g., pornography, LGBTQ+ issues)? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> How do you care for your students who are struggling with issues related to sexuality?</item> <p></p> <item> How is your institution's Christian identity reflected in your educational efforts about sexual identity and/or practice?</item> <p></p> <item> If you had the power to implement one new program or change an existing policy or program in this area, what would it be and why? What would be needed to make this policy or program a reality?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-42">Title IX</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What efforts are being made by your institution to educate staff and students regarding Title IX training and/or prevention?</item> <p></p> <item> How does Christian faith inform your response to Title IX issues?</item> <p></p> <item> How is your institution's Christian identity reflected in your Title IX policy and training?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-43">Multicultural</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How would you describe the campus climate for racial and ethnic minority students, faculty, and staff?</item> <p></p> <item> How, if at all, are white students, faculty, and staff being engaged on issues of race?</item> <p></p> <item> (if minority staff) What has been your experience with racial battle fatigue?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent, if at all, is racial or ethnic diversity discussed on your campus? Gender diversity? Class diversity?</item> <p></p> <item> How does Christian faith inform your institution's approach to diversity? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> Does your college have a statement to guide your diversity efforts?</item> <p></p> <item> In your student life experience, what has fostered more hospitable environments for racial/ethnic minorities, different genders, and classes? How has Christianity informed those efforts or practices? (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> If you had the power to implement one new program or change an existing policy or program to improve the recruitment, retention, and/or flourishing of students or/and staff of color at your institution, what would it be and why? What would be needed to make this policy or program into a reality? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>)</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-44">Social Justice/Activism</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How, if at all, is your institution involved in conversations about social justice or social transformation? Admin, Faculty, Students?</item> <p></p> <item> How, if at all, does Christianity shape these conversations or activities? Alternatively, the response to the protests?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-45">Advising, Career Counseling, Vocation, etc.</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What frameworks, practices, or other resources do you use when advising students about their majors or careers?</item> <p></p> <item> How has Christian faith informed these efforts?</item> <p></p> <item> If you had the power to implement one new program or change an existing policy or program in this area, what would it be and why? What would you need to make this policy or program a reality?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0158319977-46">Final Question</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there anyone else at your institution or elsewhere that you would suggest we interview?</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0158319977-47"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref51" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Benne, R. (2001). Quality with soul: How six premier colleges and universities keep faith with their religious traditions. William B. Eerdmans.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref48" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Coley, J. S. (2017). Reconciling religion and LGBT rights: Christian universities, theological orientations, and LGBT inclusion. Social Currents, 4 (1), 87 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496516651639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Coley, J. S. (2018). Gay on God's campus: Mobilizing for LGBT equality at Christian colleges and universities. University of North Carolina Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Craig, S. L., Austin, A., Rashidi, M., & Adams, M. (2017). Fighting for survival: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students in religious colleges and universities. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 29 (1), 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2016.1260512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref55" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref49" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref94" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dougherty, K. D., Glanzer, P. L., Robinson, J. A., Ratchford, J. L., & Schnitker, S. A. (2021). Baylor faith and character study: Methods and preliminary findings. Christian Higher Education, 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2021.1929564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., Cockle, T. F., Jeong, E. G., & Graber, B. N. (2020). Christ-enlivened student affairs: A guide to Christian thinking and practice in the field. Abilene Christian University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., & Robinson, J. A. (2020). Why we should get rid of "church-related" colleges and universities: A new empirical analysis of protestant higher education. [Unpublished manuscript].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorski, P. S. (2013). What is critical realism? And why should you care? Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 42 (5), 658 – 670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306113499533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaschik, S. (2015, September 22). To avoid split on gay marriage, 2 colleges quit Christian group. Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/22/2-colleges-leave-christian-college-group-avoid-split-over-gay-marriage/">www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/22/2-colleges-leave-christian-college-group-avoid-split-over-gay-marriage/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 state of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual, & transgender people. Campus Pride.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reason, R. D., & Broido, E. M. (2016). Philosophies and values. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & V. Torres (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rine, P. J., Glanzer, P. L., & Davignon, P. (2013). Assessing the denominational identity of American Evangelical Colleges and Universities, part II: Faculty perspectives and practices. Christian Higher Education, 12 (4), 243 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2013.805996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rockenbach, A. N., & Crandall, R. E. (2016). Faith and LGBTQ inclusion: Navigating the complexities of the campus spiritual climate in Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 15 (1–2), 62 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2015.1106355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreiner, L. A., Louis, M. C., & Nelson, D. D. (Eds.). (2020). Thriving in transitions: A research-based approach to college student success (2nd ed.). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, I. C. (2019). Finding a way forward: Predictors of thriving for LGBTQ+ students in U.S. Christian colleges and universities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Azusa Pacific University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, C. (2010). What is a person? Rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from the person up. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, K. C. (2018). Experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer students at evangelical Christian colleges as described in personal blogs. Journal of College Counseling, 21 (1), 58 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuttle, T. M. (2016). Laborare est orare: Starting a gay-straight alliance at a rural, private, Catholic college. In B. J. Glimps & T. Ford (Eds.), Gender and diversity issues in religious-based institutions and organizations (pp. 124 – 136). Information Science Reference.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vespone, B. M. (2016). Integrating identities: Facilitating a support group for LGBTQ students on a Christian campus. Christian Higher Education, 15 (4), 215 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496516651639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, J. (2015, September 21). Peace church out: Mennonite schools leave CCCU to avoid same-sex marriage split. Christianity Today. https://<ulink href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2015/september/cccu-emu-goshen-college-okwu-union-membership-status.html">www.christianitytoday.com/news/2015/september/cccu-emu-goshen-college-okwu-union-membership-status.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentz, J. M., & Wessel, R. D. (2011). The intersection of gay and Christian identities on Christian college campuses. Journal of College and Character, 12 (2), 1 – 6. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentz, J. M., & Wessel, R. (2012). Experiences of gay and lesbian students attending faith-based colleges: Considerations for improving practice. Growth: The Journal of the Association for Christians in Student Development, 11, 40 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolff, J., Kay, T. H., Himes, H. L., & Alquijay, J. (2017). Transgender and gender-nonconforming student experiences in Christian higher education: A qualitative exploration. Christian Higher Education, 16 (5), 319 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2017.1310065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolff, J. R., & Himes, H. L. (2010). Purposeful exclusion of sexual minority youth in Christian higher education: The implications of discrimination. Christian Higher Education, 9 (5), 439 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2010.513630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolff, J. R., Himes, H. L., Kwon, E. M., & Bollinger, R. A. (2012). Evangelical Christian college students and attitudes toward gay rights: A California university sample. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9 (3), 200 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2012.652892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolff, J. R., Himes, H. L., Soares, S. D., & Miller Kwon, E. (2016). Sexual minority students in non-affirming religious higher education: Mental health outness and identity. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3 (2), 201 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarhouse, M. A., Dean, J. B., Stratton, S. P., & Lastoria, M. (2018). Listening to sexual minorities: A study of faith and sexual identity on Christian college campuses. IVP Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarhouse, M. A., Stratton, S. P., Dean, J. B., & Brooke, H. L. (2009). Listening to sexual minorities on Christian college campuses. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37 (2), 96 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710903700202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarhouse, M. A., & Zaporozhets, O. (2019). Costly obedience: What we can learn from the celibate gay Christian community. Zondervan Reflective.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuan, C. (2016). Giving a voice to the voiceless: A qualitative study of reducing marginalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and same-sex attracted students at Christian colleges and universities. Wipf & Stock.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Perry L. Glanzer; Britney N. Graber and Theodore F. Cockle</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref93"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1362054
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Learning from the Mediators: How Student Affairs Staff at Christian Colleges Combine Care and Conviction in Their Responses to LGBTQ+ Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Glanzer%2C+Perry+L%2E%22">Glanzer, Perry L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3649-2516">0000-0002-3649-2516</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Graber%2C+Britney+N%2E%22">Graber, Britney N.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6347-6845">0000-0002-6347-6845</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cockle%2C+Theodore+F%2E%22">Cockle, Theodore F.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5335-8362">0000-0001-5335-8362</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Christian+Higher+Education%22"><i>Christian Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 21(4):300-325.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Personnel+Workers%22">Student Personnel Workers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Colleges%22">Religious Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Christianity%22">Christianity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caring%22">Caring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22LGBTQ+People%22">LGBTQ People</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leaders%22">Leaders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Values%22">Moral Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Development%22">Professional Development</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15363759.2021.1978903
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1536-3759<br />1539-4107
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The relationship between faith-based institutions and students who identify as LGBTQ+ has attracted considerable attention of late. Most of this scholarly attention, however, has focused upon the students themselves. In this article, we examine the contemporary experience of 371 student affairs leaders (SALs) who serve as the primary mediators between the desires and demands of LGBTQ+ advocates, scholars, and students, and the policies of current administrators. This article reports on previously unexplored data from a larger grounded theory study on Christ-enlivened student affairs to answer the research question: How do SALs at Christian universities approach LGBTQ+ students in light of the Christian mission of their institutions? Data were collected using a qualitative questionnaire of 301 SALs, as well as extended interviews with 70 SALs. Participants' moral/theological responses included a collection of Christian virtues and rules. They indicated a range of helpful practices--including how they handled campus groups--but generally agreed on the dearth of training and education they had received on the topic. In our discussion, we compare our findings to the recommendations of previous scholars before elaborating our own list of recommendations. Our suggestions for Christian campuses include a re-imagined policy statement, a commitment to education rather than training, a focus on the spiritual needs of students, and some recommendations for LGBTQ+ campus groups.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1362054
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1362054
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15363759.2021.1978903
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 300
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Personnel Workers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Christianity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caring
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: LGBTQ People
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leaders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Development
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Learning from the Mediators: How Student Affairs Staff at Christian Colleges Combine Care and Conviction in Their Responses to LGBTQ+ Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Glanzer, Perry L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Graber, Britney N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cockle, Theodore F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1536-3759
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1539-4107
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Christian Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1