What's Missing?
The debate over adding sexual orientation to Notre Dame's nondiscrimination clause continues with a new generation
In the Dec. 4, 1986, issue of Scholastic, Steffanie Keller wrote a cover story entitled “A Struggle for Recognition” about homosexuality at Notre Dame. That year marked the first time a gay student group openly contacted the administration for official recognition. Now, 22 years later, the struggle continues.
Today, the issue has sparked the interest of homosexual and heterosexual students alike. Members of the student body have been campaigning to add sexual orientation to the university’s non-discrimination clause for 10 years with little success to date.
Notre Dame’s non-discrimination clause currently reads: “The University of Notre Dame does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, disability, veteran status or age in the administration of any of its educational programs, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, athletic and other school-administered programs or in employment.” – DuLac, pg. 4
While many prominent Catholic universities, including Georgetown, Loyola University (Chicago), Boston College, Holy Cross (IN), and even Notre Dame’s sister school, Saint Mary’s College, have added sexual orientation into their non-discrimination clauses, Notre Dame has yet to do so.
The History
The Progressive Student Alliance (PSA) was founded in 1970 to advocate for equal rights and to end discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual students. The movement gained momentum in March of 1998 when Holy Cross Father David Garrick resigned in protest of the university’s failure to legally protect homosexuals from discrimination. Garrick claimed to have been suspended from his role as minister in the Basilica as a result of his coming-out as a celibate gay priest in the April 4, 1996, issue of the Observer
Father Richard Warner, current Director of Campus Ministry, denies that Garrick’s sexual orientation was a factor in the dismissal. “This is a complicated matter. I don’t know on what basis he actually thought he was being discriminated against. He resigned his position as a faculty member because of what he assumed was the reality of the situation. I am not certain that was exactly the case,” Warner says. Garrick’s resignation sparked a landmark student protest on Notre Dame’s campus with a two-hour “speak-out” in support of his actions.
On April 8, 1998, inspired by the activism on campus, the Faculty Senate voted in favor of amending the non-discrimination clause to include sexual orientation with a 33–3 vote. This was closely followed with an affirmation by a 18–6 Student Senate vote, with two abstentions, in favor of changing the clause. The student body responded with more protests in support of the change, and PSA collected over 1,300 signatures in favor of the addition.
The Academic Council did not see the issue so clearly. Despite strong support from faculty, student government, and the student body, the Council delayed their decision on the matter until November of the next semester. PSA responded to the administration’s hesitation by bringing Phil Donahue, a Notre Dame graduate and well-known talk show host, to campus and hosted numerous other guests who spoke in favor of the change. The day after the speaker series, the Council passed the motion by one vote. It seemed Notre Dame was united in resolve to change the clause.
On December 1, 1998, however, the Board of Fellows unanimously voted against adding sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause. One hundred and twenty students protested this decision with a three-day fast. Regardless, on February 5, 1999, the Board of Trustees affirmed the Fellows’ decision, and the amendment was officially defeated.
Instead of adding sexual orientation to the clause, the university responded by creating the “Spirit of Inclusion” statement which welcomes all persons into the Notre Dame community without providing legal protection on the basis of sexual orientation. The statement embodies the Catholic perspective on the issue, condemning harassment of any kind and calling students to follow Christ’s example in the treatment of others. The statement reads: “We value gay and lesbian members of this community as we value all members of this community. We condemn harassment of any kind, and university policies proscribe it.” Dennis Brown, assistant vice president for News and Information, says, “We wanted to make it absolutely clear that we want to be an environment characterized by inclusiveness derived from mission-driven assumptions.”
The Current Climate
Almost a decade after the initial defeat of the movement, students are speaking out again on this issue.
Sophomore Craig Ford, a gay student, says he is confused by Notre Dame’s failure to amend its non-discrimination clause. “What Notre Dame is saying is different than what other Catholic universities are saying,” Ford says. “What does Notre Dame see that Boston College and Loyola don’t see? They should make this knowledge known to enlighten the other universities and the student body. I think Notre Dame does not want us to know the answer to that question.”
The university has continually explained its theological reasoning in adopting the Spirit of Inclusion statement rather than changing the clause. The Church makes a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual conduct that is not recognized by society at large. The university is concerned that a court might not understand this distinction between a “homosexual person” and “homosexual conduct,” which could result in legal issues. Warner says, “Instead of the institution embodying and carrying out Church teaching in every instance, the institution would be subject to the interpretations of others not from the perspective of what the Church teaches.” Heather Rakoczy, director of the Gender Relations Center, says that it would be a disconnect to enter into a legally-binding document that conflicts with the Church’s teachings.
Senior Brad Mattan, a gay student and a member of CORE Council, an organization for GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning) students on campus, recognizes the dilemma Notre Dame faces as a prominent Catholic institution. “What is going to happen if they get sued?” Mattan says. “They will have to stick to that clause, and maybe then they might have to give benefits to same-sex partners. Where would that leave them and Notre Dame’s Catholic identity? I can sympathize with it. They would have deep trouble from the Vatican if that was to happen. I don’t know where they would even begin to defend that to the Church, who is very clear on their stance on same-sex partnerships.”
Many students say they understand the administration’s position, yet they still express feeling that there is an obligation to add sexual orientation to the clause. Ford says he wonders why both homosexual persons and those who participate in homosexual conduct are not protected from discrimination. “How does knowing the difference between homosexual conduct and homosexual persons influence whether I should be admitted to the university or have access to educational programs, scholarship and loan programs, etc.?” Ford says. “Notre Dame needs to open itself up to those situations and determine where they come into conflict.”
Sophomore Eddie Velazquez, a gay student and a member of CORE Council, says, “We can’t consider ourselves an institution of higher learning if we are willing to discriminate against certain groups of people.”
The Student Response
Multiple groups on campus have gotten involved in the current movement. At the end of the 2006–2007 school year, the Student Senate passed a resolution encouraging the addition of sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause, but due to a miscommunication, the resolution was never sent to any office, and dialogue was temporarily halted. Under the leadership of sophomore Pangborn Senator Denise Baron, this year’s Senate reopened the issue.
“We wanted to have the resolution from our current Senate to bring it to the administration to continue the dialogue that totally dropped off the year before. We thought it was really important to bring this Senate’s opinion,” Baron says. The resolution passed with only one objection, sophomore Fisher Senator Stephen Bant, and one abstention, junior Sorin Senator George Chamberlain.
“I thought on the whole that it would not accomplish anything,” Bant says. “I did not agree with it for many of the same reasons the university would not pass it.” He emphasizes the importance of respecting Notre Dame alumni and traditions when evaluating the resolution. “The older alumni would strongly oppose this measure. The majority of people would agree discrimination is horrible, but inclusiveness can be achieved without this. I am a big fan of the Spirit of Inclusion that we have,” he says. “You cannot change the fundamental issue by changing the clause. It takes a lot more than a policy change.”
Baron agrees that more than a resolution is necessary to achieve the desired change. “What is really needed is a dialogue between the administration and those of us who have taken this up as an issue. There needs to be a discussion of why this is not in there now,” Baron says.
Baron worries that the timing of the resolution will diminish its impact. There will be new student government officials next year who might not show the same commitment to the issue. “However, there is an opportunity to begin next year at full throttle. There is that perspective now that can really lead to a huge push next year,” Baron says.
Newly-elected student body President Bob Reish says that he will respond to the student body’s needs when addressing the resolution on the non-discrimination clause. “We recognize the history that comes with this clause, as it’s been debated in many different venues within the university. Everyone will have their own opinion on this issue, but it’s our job to represent the interests of the student body. If there is a demonstrated concern from students regarding this clause, then it will be something we pursue,” Reish says.
PSA has also revived its interest in the movement by circulating a petition to the student body. Senior Mike McCann, a member of PSA helping to organize the petition signing, says, “We saw a role for us in this campaign. The petition is just a starting point. It is meant to get the issue brought up among the student body and get the conversation started.” McCann estimates that the petition, which will be collected, consolidated and presented to the administration at the end of the semester, will have as many as 1,000 signatures.
McCann also co-founded a Facebook group promoting the petition which has about 700 members. “It is pretty unbelievable, the power of Facebook. It can do a lot of good about getting the word out for a social movement,” McCann says.
Sophomore Patrick Tighe, co-chair of the Gender Relations Senate committee, says he believes it is necessary for student government to continue their involvement if anything is going to change. “I don’t feel there is enough momentum built up from the petition. That is why we need a big student government initiative,” Tighe says. “We need to reach alumni and educate them on what is going on on-campus. I think if we can show that people have been discriminated against, they will be supportive of it.”
The Administration’s Response
Despite the initiative of various student groups throughout the years, the administration’s reasons for not changing the clause remain the same. Brown says, “For Notre Dame to change our non-discrimination clause to include sexual orientation would expose the university to a judicial interpretation of the clause in ways that could jeopardize our ability as a Catholic university to take action and make decisions necessary to support Church teachings on sexual orientation and conduct. The Fellows of the university, who reviewed the officers’ decision, did not believe the university should leave to civil courts the interpretation and application of Church teaching to the internal affairs of the university. In addition, unlike other categories protected against discrimination under federal law, Congress has not extended such protection to sexual orientation, nor is there any state or local law in Indiana that requires this. We wanted to avoid a situation whereby decisions in the area of sexual orientation and/or homosexual conduct could be adjudicated by civil courts using criteria arising from a changing and often political social milieu.”
Warner believes the Spirit of Inclusion is a more appropriate statement for a religious institution. “It is almost like a mission statement of how we should treat each other and our fellow students, and why we do it, which is even more important,” Warner says. “I am not belittling the legal protection, because that has been helpful for many classes of people. But when you are dealing with something that has theological connotations, you have to look at it even more carefully.” The Spirit of Inclusion allows Notre Dame to maintain control over its affairs while still not tolerating harassment or discrimination of any kind. “It has stood the test of time and goes beyond a legal document to talk about our expectations as a Catholic university, that we are all brothers and sisters in God,” Warner says.
The university has taken a stance against intolerance, but what about real legal protection? “If we discriminate against somebody in terms of tenure because their orientation is different, we are liable to the laws of the land,” Warner says.
The Future of the Movement
Might student efforts eventually be recognized? Brown says he thinks it is unlikely. “When the question of whether to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause was raised a decade ago, it was considered very carefully with a full analysis from both legal and theological perspectives. Nothing has happened from a legal or theological standpoint since that time that would lead the university to reconsider that decision,” he says.
Junior Sade Murphy, a bisexual student, says she hopes the students can turn the tide of this decade-long debate. “If more people truly care about this issue and believe that sexual orientation should be part of the non-discrimination clause, then they should speak out,” she says. “It’s about knowing what is right and being a part of the voice that speaks out for it.”
