In a letter to the campus community released Tuesday, Vice President for Student Affairs Juan Gonzalez detailed his proposed compromise on the issue of a resource center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. This compromise represents an important step forward for the University, but it raises questions about the administration’s decision-making process.
The compromise includes the creation of a new administrative position, Special Assistant to the Vice President of Student Affairs, to deal with LGBT issues University-wide, and a working group to evaluate and to suggest improvements to existing campus services for LGBT students. Gonzalez’ most recent letter also reaffirmed the reasons in his Feb. 8 letter for denying a resource center. In both letters, he maintains that a center would inevitably advocate positions incompatible with Catholic teachings and that Georgetown’s existing resources for LGBT students should be examined and improved if necessary
Although the proposed center would have been the ideal choice, the addition of a staff member whose sole job will be to oversee the improvement of LGBT student life will benefit the campus and could potentially offer the same benefits as a center, albeit in a different environment. We hope that whoever is chosen to fill the position will carry out many of the same tasks that would have been addressed by the resource center, in addition to lobbying the administration and educating the campus community on issues facing sexual minorities. These include compiling statistics, providing referrals for on- and off-campus resources, offering information on health issues and coordinating a support group, among others.
The LGBT working group could also be an effective vehicle for campus improvements, provided that Gonzalez follows through on the implementation of its proposals. But follow-through hasn’t been Gonzalez’s strong suit so far. Many students were disappointed by his inadequate response to the recommendations of last summer’s LGBT Ad Hoc Committee.
The compromise has positive implications for other Catholic universities. Georgetown is now at the forefront of Catholic institutions for dealing with LGBT issues and sets an example for students at other Catholic schools to work toward obtaining similar services from their administrations, who will now have no excuse for failing to address LGBT issues openly, positively and proactively.
But the decision-making process that produced the compromise was troubling and needs to be addressed before the University will be able to move forward successfully on any new LGBT plans. According to resource center organizers, Gonzalez wavered as to how the proposed LGBT center would fit with Georgetown’s Catholic identity. They say he initially claimed that Church doctrine could be used to support whatever decision he made on the resource center, but, as evidenced by his letter, Gonzalez now clearly believes that the mere potential of advocating positions counter to Catholic teachings is reason enough to deny the center. Meanwhile, Gonzalez hasn’t clarified how the responsibilities of the new administrator will be different in terms of Catholic identity, who it seems will carry out many of the same tasks as the director of a proposed LGBT resource center would have. But, for Gonzalez, the former is consistent with the University’s identity and the latter is not. This isn’t clear, and Gonzalez was less than forthcoming with responses throughout the resource center debate. Now, his lack of clarity harms his credibility.
Finally, the role of outside influences in Gonzalez’ decision raises the question of whose interests mattered most in this debate. Reports from resource center organizers point to the concern over the reaction of conservative alumni and members of the Church hierarchy in Gonzalez’ initial decision not to support the center and to the involvement of D.C. City Council member David Catania (SFS ‘90), who supported the compromise decision.
Gonzalez has denied the first claim and won’t elaborate very much on his discussions with Catania, who is openly gay. But his period of long silence throughout the debate and changing reasons for not granting the center raise concerns over whether student input and support really mattered in his decision. Catania himself reiterated that Gonzalez was “extremely open” and “eager to meet the needs of LGBT students,” but he also admitted that negotiations over the compromise “might have stalled” without his involvement. The mere appearance of outside influences as factors in Gonzalez’ decisions should not exist; instead, the demonstrated needs of students should have been the sole criteria for determining the necessity of the resource center.
While Gonzalez has made an admirable decision to support the needs of LGBT students, he must maintain an unwavering commitment to LGBT issues, listen carefully to the recommendations of the administrator and the working group and follow through completely on them. Otherwise, his support for LGBT students doesn’t support much at all.
