Boro Pride Stands with the LGBTQ+ Students, Faculty, and Staff of GSU
Written through a collaborative student effort, posted by BoroPride.
An Open Letter to Whom It May Concern:
Between April 10 and 12, 2024, the vast majority of signage, resources, and programs offered by Georgia Southern University used to affirm and support LGBTQIA+ individuals on campus were rapidly removed from physical and digital campus resources. Information about services, including therapy groups for LGBTQIA+ students, trainings to educate faculty/staff about LGBTQIA+ identities (i.e., Safe Space/Zone), medical treatments for transgender students, career resources, LGBTQIA+ symbolism, and diversity statements from the university website was removed from public view. In addition to reducing the visibility of services for LGBTQIA+ students, GSU pride flags were promptly removed from the shelves of the university bookstore, and adjustments were made to programming for upcoming events for LGBTQIA+ students. For instance, two Lavender Graduation Celebrations, ceremonies honoring the achievements of LGBTQIA+ graduates, were moved to earlier, less convenient times, and university-sponsored catering was withdrawn. Additionally, over the past semester, notice was given that drag events would no longer be permitted on campus. Further, the university discontinued Safe Space, recently rebranded to Safe Zone, a training workshop created to educate students, faculty, and staff about gender, sexuality, and allyship for LGBTQIA+ communities. The swift and quiet removal of LGBTQIA+ resource advertisements and shifts in programming signals a concerning change in the university’s approach to supporting its LGBTQIA+ student population.
University faculty and staff may be required to transition all public-facing spaces to a uniform and standardized appearance. This includes the removal of LGBTQIA+-affirming signage from public spaces, including pride flags and stickers indicating their offices as Safe Spaces/Zones for LGBTQIA+ individuals. Employees have been told to be “mindful of how they represent campus,” suggesting that affirming signage is incongruent with the university’s image. These restrictions hinder faculty from conveying affirmation, inclusion, and safety to LGBTQIA+ students and limit their ability to share resources beyond word-of-mouth communication. Naturally, restricting advertising and dissemination of information about services to word-of-mouth communication acts as a barrier to LGBTQIA+ students in learning about and accessing services. Relatedly, on several occasions, faculty with available funding and departmental support have submitted requests to the university administration to approve their department’s sponsorship and support of LGBTQIA+ health, social, and/or community initiatives (e.g., local pride events, on-campus LGBTQIA+ student events). The administration has declined these opportunities.
When asked about removing advertising for these services, the university administration stated that services and their marketing are being “adjusted” without elaborating upon the nature of expected adjustments except that they must be “in compliance” with the Board of Regents policy. Notably, this removal was not communicated to university faculty/staff unless specifically required. The university administration has refrained from acknowledging this change in written or public communication. Further, students, faculty, and staff received no forewarning of the impending removal of LGBTQIA+ website and campus visibility. This action was conducted two weeks before the end of semester classes and the commencement of summer break. There has yet to be any written communication of these changes issued by the university administration or president.
Georgia Southern University administration has verbally communicated a few motivating factors for these adjustments. First, the administration has expressed concerns regarding culturally affirming language. Specifically, the administration has voiced discontent with using the word intersectionality. This perspective reveals a concerning stance toward equity, diversity, and social justice from the university administration. By disregarding the intricacies of intersectionality (i.e., the study of overlapping or intersecting social identities), the university not only stigmatizes these terms but actively shows their miseducation and lack of understanding and ability to address these issues effectively.
Another reason cited for these changes is the promotion of “equity” for all students. Accordingly, the USG Board of Regents and university administration have taken the position that if all students cannot utilize a resource, it should not be provided or promoted. This approach dismisses the importance and value of equity because it fails to recognize that equity involves providing resources and support based on different groups' specific needs and barriers rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. Equity acknowledges that not all students start from the same place or have the same access to opportunities; therefore, it seeks to address these disparities by providing targeted support to marginalized or underrepresented groups. By insisting that resources must be accessible to all students or else they should be removed or deprioritized, the approach asserted by the USG Board of Regents and university administration overlooks the reality that certain groups may require additional support or resources to achieve equitable outcomes. It ignores the systemic inequalities and barriers that marginalized groups face and implies that providing equal access to resources, regardless of need, is sufficient to address these disparities. Importantly, resources targeted at other identity groups (i.e., women, veterans, first-generation students) have not been removed from Georgia Southern websites or on-campus locations. By singling out resources related to LGBTQIA+ support, such as Safe Space/Zone training, for removal or criticism while allowing resources targeted at other identity groups to remain unaffected, the approach perpetuates a hierarchical view of identity where some groups are deemed more deserving of support than others. This undermines the principles of equity and perpetuates injustice by failing to address the unique challenges faced by the LGBTQIA+ student community.
Extensive research shows that visibly supporting LGBTQIA+ individuals and their identities promotes self-acceptance, safety, sense of belonging, and resilience for these individuals, all of which are integral to student success during college and beyond graduation (Campen, 2021; Langan, 2020; Weinhardt et al., 2021; Wolowick et al., 2017; Woodford et al., 2018). Encouraging programs that foster identity development is crucial in increasing the overall well-being of LGBTQIA+ students (Ceatha et al., 2018; Mundy, 2018; Waling & Roffee, 2018). The university’s removal of physical and digital information about LGBTQIA+ identities and services is contrary to best practices. It serves as a visible erasure of LGBTQIA+ students in public spaces, reinforcing the stigmatization of these identities with tangible impacts for students, faculty, and staff who identify as LGBTQIA+ (Stewart & Kendrick, 2018). The faculty and staff supporting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts have years of training, experience, and often research, supporting their ability to provide education on these topics and inform decisions using best practices in their respective fields. Notably, no efforts were made to collaborate or consult with the faculty and staff who work in these areas regarding revamping removed advertisements and programming.
In addition to the removal of Safe Space Training, the university has also removed all departmental diversity statements from its website. The university administration has noted that a human resources policy change implemented by USG is the reason for both actions. The policy specifically notes:
“Institutions should provide training to employees responsible for recruiting and hiring faculty and staff to ensure that Institutional procedures are appropriately and consistently followed. All training performed by the Institution must be approved by Institution’s Chief Human Resources Officer (“CHRO”) and the Institution’s President. The use of affirmations, ideological tests, and oaths (including diversity statements) are expressly prohibited and should not be utilized for recruitment and selection purposes. Additionally, individual units and departments are not permitted to mandate recruitment training for search committee members or departmental employees beyond that which is approved by those with the above referenced Institutional oversight.”
It is important to note that Safe Space/Zone was not a required training for university employees. Therefore, the policy on employee training does not apply to Safe Space/Zone training, as it is an optional experience that is not ostensibly used for recruitment, selection, or promotion purposes.
Regarding the removal of diversity statements, this is problematic for several reasons. Students from historically marginalized backgrounds have the right to know the stance of the faculty and staff within their program on supporting their diverse experiences and to have access to resources supporting their experiences on a university campus. As these are unavailable, current and prospective students have no means to navigate these critical decision-making processes due to the university’s lack of overt care for or acknowledgment of the importance of diverse experiences.
Moreover, some departmental diversity statements are required for degree accreditation. While the USG Board of Regents governs education to students in public state universities, other bodies govern licensure and accreditation of specific professional fields. Due to non-compliance with accreditation requirements, several professional degree programs offered by Georgia Southern University might be at risk due to removing these statements. It is important to note that diversity statements are available to those on the GSU intranet. This was pointed out as an effort to truncate the ~120,000 public-facing pages to ~8,400 visible pages. However, this appears to be an action to appease those on campus for having the statements while not projecting the commitment of the university to acknowledge diversity. Additionally, this highlights the lack of importance the university places on diversity.
Acknowledgment and resources for LGBTQIA+ students are necessary for the well-being of these communities. Research highlights the need for affirmation of identities to decrease mistrust in providers. Many LGBTQIA+ individuals avoid seeking physical and mental health treatment due to the expectation of discrimination or previous experiences of such. By removing these as opportunities for students, the administration is encouraging these barriers based on a fear of difference. The administration is currently exhibiting a lack of care for attention to the data. If they did, they would easily be able to find a plethora of studies globally that encourage the acknowledgment and affirmation of those within these communities. This has historically been the case, where cisgender, heterosexual, and white people deem what is “necessary” for the greater population to know. As a result, they are either doing this with the knowledge of the pain they are inflicting, or they are not qualified enough to conduct a Google search but deem themselves qualified enough to enforce a lack of care for their students.
When asked about its removal of all information about medical services for transgender students from the GSU Health Services website, the university stated it does not offer gender-affirming care. This response reflects a misunderstanding of what constitutes gender-affirming care. While gender-affirming care includes medical interventions (e.g., hormone replacement therapy, surgical procedures), it also encompasses a broad range of social, psychological, and behavioral supports to affirm an individual’s gender identity. Presently at Georgia Southern, gender-affirming care is provided by creating safe and inclusive spaces for transgender and non-binary students to receive support, express their gender through name and clothing, receive mental health counseling, enter spaces for social support and community, and find resources to support them in academic, professional, and social settings. The mechanisms of support that Georgia Southern currently provides are crucial to the well-being of LGBTQIA+ students. Extensive research has highlighted how visible support and accessible resources, as previously offered by Georgia Southern, can promote a sense of belonging and community, increase the use of physical and mental health treatment, and reduce rates of depression (Ali & Lambie, 2019; Renn, 2022; Russell et al., 2018; Sadowski, 2018). The statement that Georgia Southern does not provide gender-affirming care overlooks the many ways trained professionals support LGBTQIA+ individuals on campus in culturally affirming ways. Furthermore, the assertion that Georgia Southern does not offer any affirming services for gender minority students reflects a failure to recognize the diverse needs and experiences of LGBTQIA+ students, perpetuating systemic barriers to inclusion and care.
Across the United States, we have witnessed numerous policies, legislation, and initiatives that invalidate, diminish, and suppress LGBTQIA+ individuals and their identities and decimate much-needed identity-supportive services, leading to unsafe learning and workplace environments for LGBTQIA+ students, faculty, staff, and community members. These actions, like the ones being taken by Georgia Southern University, are not only detrimental to the well-being of LGBTQIA+ individuals but also have a harmful impact on the campus environment for all students. Georgia Southern’s actions to reduce LGBTQIA+ visibility and access to services contradict the principles of equity, inclusion, and diversity that the institution purports to uphold, undermining a sense of community and safety for all members of the campus. The watering down of these efforts transforms them into versions that do not truly encompass what the mission was to begin with, and therefore, the effort eventually fails. University systems have historically used this self-inflicted failure as proof of the effort's unsuccessfulness while ignoring the success of the efforts before university involvement. However, if these decisions were not based on similar situations, then they would not have been well thought out. The university is showing an endorsement of restricting the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, allowing people who are anti-LGBTQIA+ to have a platform to launch their discrimination.
References
Ali, S., & Lambie, G. W. (2019). Examining the utility of group counseling for LGBTQ+ young adults in the coming out process. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 44(1), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2018.1561775
Langan, N. M. (2020). On being seen and heard: An interview study of LGBTQIA students’ experiences of belonging and becoming in college (Doctoral dissertation, East Stroudsburg University).
Mundy, D. (2018). Identity, visibility & measurement: How university LGBTQ centers engage and advocate for today’s LGBTQ student. The Journal of Public Interest Communications, 2(2), 239-239. https://doi.org/10.32473/jpic.v2.i2.p239
Renn, K. A. (2022). Success for LGBT college and university students. In Strategies for supporting inclusion and diversity in the academy: Higher education, aspiration and inequality (pp. 183-200). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04174-7_10
Russell, S. T., Pollitt, A. M., Li, G., & Grossman, A. H. (2018). Chosen name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior among transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(4), 503-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.003
Sadowski, M. (2017). More than a safe space: How schools can enable LGBTQ students to thrive. American Educator, 40(4), 4.
Stewart, B., & Kendrick, K. D. (2019). “Hard to find”: information barriers among LGBT college students. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2019-0040
Waling, A., & Roffee, J. A. (2018). Supporting LGBTIQ+ students in higher education in Australia: Diversity, inclusion and visibility. Health Education Journal, 77(6), 667-679. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896918762233
Weinhardt, L.S., Wesp, L.M., Xie, H., Murray, J., Martín, J., DeGeorge, S., Weinhardt, C.B., Hawkins, M., & Stevens, P. (2021). Pride Camp: Pilot study of an intervention to develop resilience and self-esteem among LGBTQ youth. International Journal for Equity in Health, 20, 150 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01488-1
Wolowic, J. M., Heston, L. V., Saewyc, E. M., Porta, C., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2017). Chasing the rainbow: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth and pride semiotics. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(5), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2016.1251613
Woodford, M. R., Kulick, A., Garvey, J. C., Sinco, B. R., & Hong, J. S. (2018). LGBTQ policies and resources on campus and the experiences and psychological well-being of sexual minority college students: Advancing research on structural inclusion. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(4), 445-456. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000289
