Vice President of Student Affairs Juan Gonzalez definitively rejected the proposed resource center for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students on Friday. An ad hoc committee first presented the idea for a GLBT center to Gonzalez in August, and student supporters have been meeting with Gonzalez and other administrators to discuss the proposition throughout the year.
“A definitive no, really, is better than the only other reasonably expectable response-?none at all,” said a statement released by GLBT resource center supporters. Gonzalez claimed during the meeting to have given the students this answer before. Anthony House (CAS ‘02) said the students denied that he had made such a statement prior to Friday.
Resource center organizers as well as Director of Student Programs Mary Kay Schneider and Associate Roman Catholic Chaplain Barbara Humphrey McCrabb were present at the meeting with Gonzalez.
The resource center organizers expected a written response from Gonzalez by the third week in January and have yet to receive one, according to House.
Schneider said the administration has been working on the response since late December. Student supporters are unsure of when they will actually receive this response.
“[Gonzalez] didn’t even give us a tentative date, which is very discouraging,” House said.
The adminstration’s formal, written response should be available within the week, according to Gonzalez’ Executive Assistant Raymund Acevedo.
Gonzalez could not be reached for comment.
“He will not be giving any interviews regarding the GLBT resource center proposal until after the official response has been released,” Acevedo said on his behalf.
“We’re waiting to hear back from people in Healy. It’s still in the reviewing stage,” he said. Acevedo said that he was not aware of which administrators were reviewing the response.
Carolyn Hurwitz, coordinator of Sexual Assault Services, spoke of the difficulty Gonzalez may encounter in forming a response which requires several administrators’ approval. “He is trying to be really fair,” she said.
Hurwitz said that the administration’s response is not entirely negative. “It’s a ‘no but’ rather than just a ‘no’ response,” she said.
During the meeting on Friday, Gonzalez presented several reasons as to why he felt the resource center was not possible.
According to a statement released by the resource center organizers, Gonzalez told them that they had not shown need comparable to that of other marginalized groups who have centers on campus.
Gonzalez also mentioned the University’s Catholic heritage and external sources as threats to a GLBT center, said the organizers. They quoted Gonzalez as saying, “It could … be perceived incorrectly by outside sources as advocating activity condemned by the church. It could also evolve over time into a role of advocating immoral activity.”
When the organizers questioned these responses during their meeting, they said that Gonzalez offered no further explanation.
“There is an absudity in it. And the thing is that I won’t ever be able to explain it,” organizers said, quoting Gonzalez in the released statement.
Despite Gonzalez’s decision, students said that they will still pursue the creation of a resource center. They plan to meet with University President John J. DeGioia to appeal Gonzalez’ decision, according to the released statement.
“We told Gonzalez that the resource center issue isn’t dead, but we talked about what we can do in the meantime,” said McFadden, co-president of GU Pride and a Voice staff member.
The administration and students met again on Wednesday night to discuss an expanded committee which may implement programs for GLBT students without establishing a physical center. It will discuss progress made during the fall and then future plans, Hurwitz said.
This committee will be composed only of people interested in GLBT issues, rather than people appointed by Gonzalez, according to Hurwitz. The resource center organizers hope to have interested students apply to the expanded committee, McFadden said.
“There are a lot of administrators, faculty and students that want to make this campus more friendly for gay students,” Hurwitz said. “We’re not looking for a Band-Aid approach. This needs broad-based support,” she said.
Organizers said that they feel the administration’s response is contradictory. “Why is it not OK to have a resource center when we can have these programs? Where do you draw the line?” House asked.
Organizers hope the committee will help to further meet GLBT students’ needs, yet have mixed feelings over its effectiveness. “We are optimistic about the prospects of this committee getting things done,” House said. He added that he was worried that the administrators on the committee may feel constrained by upper-level pressures.
House expressed concern over the reach of the committee. “It just seems like a lot of words to me. It seems like the group won’t be given any actual power. It will be a good place to discuss and maybe persuade people, but it won’t have any teeth,” he said.
McFadden said that he felt more hopeful about the possibilities of the committee and future interaction with the administration. “I was really pleasantly surprised at how genuine they are about helping,” he said. “I’m cautiously optimistic. The committee has the potential to do a lot of great things. The only conflict will be between what we think is necessary and they think is possible,” he said.
The students in support of a GLBT resource center said in their statement that they will continue activist and educational activities to gain supporters in the community.
“Major results are awhile away. The University has very few resources right now and the ones we have aren’t put to very good use,” McFadden said.
