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

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Perry L. Glanzer ◽  
Britney N. Graber ◽  
Theodore F. Cockle
Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Jonathan S. Coley

Due to rapid changes in societal attitudes toward LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) people, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, Christian colleges and universities are experiencing more pressure to become inclusive of LGBTQ students. This article draws on U.S. Department of Education data on all four-year, not-for-profit Christian colleges and universities, as well as an original longitudinal dataset of LGBTQ student groups across Christian colleges and universities, to describe the landscape of LGBTQ student inclusion on Christian campuses before and after Obergefell v. Hodges. In 2013, two years before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, just under half (45%) of Christian colleges and universities had LGBTQ student groups. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision has evidently had little effect on holdouts: in 2019, the percentage of Christian colleges and universities that were home to LGBTQ student groups was only slightly higher (47%). Logistic regression analyses reveal that Christian colleges and universities that have recently become home to LGBTQ student groups were already predisposed to having LGBTQ groups in the first place, given that they are associated with social justice-minded denominations, have large student bodies, and have higher percentages of women students. The article’s findings hold implications for ongoing research on the status of LGBTQ people within Christian institutions.


JCSCORE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-41
Author(s):  
Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero

Race has been one of the most controversial subjects studied by scholars across a wide range of disciplines as they debate whether races actually exist and whether race matters in determining life, social, and educational outcomes. Missing from the literature are investigations into various ways race gets applied in research, especially in higher education and student affairs. This review explores how scholars use race in their framing, operationalizing, and interpreting of research on college students. Through a systematic content analysis of three higher education journals over five years, this review elucidates scholars’ varied racial applications as well as potential implicit and explicit messages about race being sent by those applications and inconsistencies within articles. By better understanding how race is used in higher education and student affairs research, scholars can be more purposeful in their applications to reduce problematic messages about the essentialist nature of race and deficit framing of certain racial groups.


JCSCORE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-85
Author(s):  
Victoria K. Malaney ◽  
Kendra Danowski

This paper presents an overview of multiracial student organizing and organizations on college campuses. The authors address common challenges that multiracial student organizations face in higher education, how student affairs staff can challenge institutional practices that perpetuate monoracism, and how to support and empower mixed race students to effectively develop strong leadership skills. Several recommendations for working through political and administrative hurdles are also provided.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-89
Author(s):  
Hawken Brackett ◽  
E. Douglas McKnight

<?page nr="69"?>Abstract A misalignment exists between the institutional management of individual student behavior and the stated ethical principles undergirding modern higher education practices in the United States, ultimately creating an ethical failure serving no one. We discuss this misalignment from the site of student affairs, due to its charge to represent both university and student. A technocratic ethical discourse creates the illusion of decision-making autonomy that promises certain outcomes if “common sense” leadership practices are employed. The lens of technical rationality homogenizes and reduces perceived problems to simple either/ors that fail to address the inequitable effects of such ethical logic. We counter “common sense” leadership with a notion of ethical leadership called phronetic leadership, which is informed by an Aristotelian understanding of phronesis (practical wisdom), virtue ethics, and a Foucauldian awareness of governmentality. We argue that phronetic leaders can mend the cleft crippling institutional ethical foundations and practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document