Contradiction and Paradox:
Attempting to Change the Culture of Sexual Orientation at a Small Catholic College

Patrick G. Love

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students are faced with oppressive, hateful, homophobic climates--cultures in which they are made to feel invisible and isolated (Love, 1993; Norris, 1992; Rhoads, 1994). Many of the students leave (Evans & Wall, 1991). Others contemplate, attempt, or commit suicide (Gibson, 1989; Saunders & Valente, 1987). Some stay and struggle to develop into whole, functioning human beings, despite the lack of a supportive environment. Religiously affiliated institutions (RAIs) are typically even less friendly places for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (D'Emilio, 1992). However, despite assumptions to the contrary, lesbian, gay, and bisexual peopledo attend, teach, and work at RAIs.

Religiously affiliated colleges vary widely. Lumping them together masks as much diversity as lumping together all liberal arts colleges. This is especially [End Page 381] the case when looking at the issue of sexual orientation. At one extreme are institutions, such as Bible colleges and fundamentalist schools, which explicitly enunciate a very clear and consistent belief about homosexuality: It is a choice, it is wrong, it is immoral, and the Bible specifies homosexuality to be a sin (Maret, 1984). At the other end of this continuum are institutions, such as some of those founded in the Friends (or Quaker) tradition, that tend to be more open to, and accepting of, individual diversity; they tend to see sexual orientation as one element of that diversity. Of course, many institutions, no doubt the bulk of RAIs in the United States, fall between the extremes.

It is important to recognize that, no matter what position they take on this issue, RAIs--indeed all colleges and universities--exist within a societal culture that is homophobic and heterosexist; thus, all institutions struggle in some way with issues related to sexual orientation. Finally, an important reason to study issues of sexual orientation at RAIs is that many of the suggestions in the current literature for working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students (e.g., conducting orientation activities for gay and lesbian students, and distributing literature to prospective students about gay and lesbian organization [Wall & Evans, 1991]) may be culturally inappropriate on many of these campuses. Therefore, it is important to discover what professionals can do within the cultural constraints of their campus, while attempting to change those cultures. This is especially important given a recent study of student affairs professionals at Catholic colleges (Estanek, 1996) which found that issues of sexuality and sexual orientation were the most challenging parts of their jobs.

Personnel at Catholic colleges and universities, perhaps more than other RAIs, face significant environmental constraints in addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. The formal teachings of the church, while rejecting homosexuality, do not reject the individual homosexual; however, the culture of Catholicism is often significantly more homophobic and rejecting (Nugent & Gramick, 1989). This culture, which exists both on campus and in the larger community among alumni, local churches and congregations, and church leaders, significantly constrains actions on campus. While this larger culture cannot be ignored, the focus of this study was the internal culture of one campus.

This study reports on the culture related to sexual orientation--and attempts to change it--at St. James College (a pseudonym), an RAI that falls between the two aforementioned extremes. The questions that guided this study were: "What is the culture of the institution as it relates to sexual orientation?" and "What can we learn about changing the culture of sexual orientation at RAIs from the experiences of the individuals who participated in this study?" [End Page 382]

The focus of this study--culture--is a complex concept and a powerful, invisible influence in the community of any college or university. Culture can be imagined as a fabric that is continually created and recreated by members of the community. In daily activities, members weave together their values, beliefs, and assumptions with those of others in the institution. The fabric includes patterns of interpretations related to the history, traditions, and mission of the institution and subgroups within the institution. These patterns, values, beliefs, and assumptions guide the behavior of individuals and actions of groups and they do so frequently subconsciously (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). This study explored the patterns of values, beliefs, and assumptions of the participants as they related to sexual orientation.

Just as people proceed through their day largely unaware of the fabric that covers their bodies, so they proceed through their day largely unaware of how the fabric of culture guides their behavior, directs their activities, and influences how they see things and interpret behaviors. The subconscious nature of culture operation of culture mainly at the subconscious level makes it difficult to identify; and although culture is constantly evolving, this characteristic also makes culture "difficult to modify intentionally" (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. 101). Peterson, Cameron, Mets, Jones, and Ettington (1986, as cited in Kuh & Whitt, 1988) argued that institutional cultures could be changed in seven ways: "by creating new units. . . , by changing clientele or staff significantly, by using a visionary/interpretive leadership style, by redefining strategy and mission, by reorganizing the institution, by using conflict in creative ways to identify cultural artifacts and differences between espoused and enacted values, and by using cataclysmic events and conditions to refocus institutional goals and priorities" (p. 101).

Siehl (1985) identified several triggers to induce culture change, such as environmental calamities, environmental opportunities, and internal revolutions. The participants of this study were attempting to change the culture related to sexual orientation at St. James College; and, as will become evident, few of the ways cited above were at their disposal. I discovered that the aspect of the St. James's culture related to sexual orientation as the participants perceived it was filled with contradiction and paradox. I argue that these contradictions and paradoxes can be an avenue to change the culture related to sexual orientation at RAIs and may be an example of "using conflict in creative ways."

The purpose of this article, then, is to present and discuss some of the contradictions and paradoxes discovered, analyze how the culture maintains these contradictions, and discuss how the findings might suggest particular actions related to changing culture for administrators at similar RAIs. The contradictions outlined here are those that deal most closely and specifically with the religiously affiliated nature of the institution. [End Page 383]

Methodology

Investigating culture requires discovering and understanding the meanings that people assign to their experiences; and identifying shared meanings, beliefs, values, and assumptions related to organizational experiences. Uncovering meanings, beliefs, values, and assumptions requires the prolonged contact, in-depth interviews, and empathic listening employed in qualitative research.

Setting

St. James is a moderately selective liberal arts college of approximately 2,200 students located in the northeastern United States, in a suburb on the border of a moderate-sized urban area. Most students are white, are Catholic, and come from working- or middle-class families. St. James is a college in the Catholic tradition. Although it has no formal ties with the Catholic church, its history, traditions, and values are grounded in Catholic origins; students, parents, and alumni consider it a Catholic college. It has a long history of interacting with, influencing, and being influenced by the local community beyond the college. Priests of the founding denomination reside on campus and serve among the faculty. The college president has always been a priest. Priests from the local diocese (including one of the bishops) serve on the board of trustees.

I pursued this study when I became aware through colleagues working at St. James that some students were working to establish a Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Alliance. During the previous year, People Against Homophobia (a faculty and staff group), Students Against Homophobia, and the Continuum Group (a counseling center-based support group for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students) had been organized on campus. Given that culture is easier to identify during times of transition or conflict (Love, 1991), the emergence of these groups presented an ideal opportunity to study the culture of an RAI as it related to sexual orientation and attempts to change it.

Data Collection

I collected data from March 1993 until December 1993. The process of participant selection began with the students who self-identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and were working to develop the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Alliance (GLBA) of St. James College. Additional participants were selected both purposively (Patton, 1980) and through snowball sampling: asking these students to identify others who were supportive of efforts to address sexual orientation (Dobbert 1984; Whitt & Kuh 1991). I conducted 41 interviews with 26 people. These included the four founding members of the GLBA; nine members of Students Against Homophobia; the Student Senate president; the chairperson of the student programming committee; four administrators (which included three members of People Against Homophobia, [End Page 384] including its two co-founders [the director of the counseling center and a campus minister], and the moderator of Students Against Homophobia); the academic dean; and six faculty (three of whom were members of People Against Homophobia). I observed six events: three residence hall programs related to sexual orientation, one campus-wide program related to sexual orientation, and two meetings of Students Against Homophobia.

Data Analysis

I analyzed the data concurrently with data collection, using unitizing and categorizing methods adapted from Guba and Lincoln's (1989) constructivist inquiry methodology and Glaser and Strauss's constant comparative method (1967; also Strauss & Corbin, 1990). I conducted the first round of interviews during the 1993 spring semester. My preliminary analysis and feedback from the participants shaped the interview protocols for other students, faculty, and staff interviewed in the 1993 fall semester. I conducted final interviews with four key respondents (one gay and one bisexual student, and two administrators) during November and December 1993.

To enhance the study's authenticity and trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), I returned transcripts to most participants for their review. (Several students indicated no desire to review their transcripts.) Eleven returned transcripts with notes of correction and clarification; several who received transcripts presumably felt no need for corrections. I discussed emerging categories with six participants and provided an initial report of the study to four key respondents for their reaction and critique. The ongoing process of analysis resulted in a picture of a culture that exhibited contradictions and paradoxes related to sexual orientation to the participants.

Contradictions and Paradoxes

A contradiction is a statement that denies itself or propositions that are logically incongruous or inconsistent. In this case, contradictions refer to aspects of the culture that the participants perceived as denying each other or as being incongruous. These contradicting cultural elements should not have been able to exist together, but they did. A paradox, on the other hand, is a statement or proposition that is seemingly self-contradictory but in reality expresses a truth. In this case, paradoxes refer to aspects of the culture that, given assumptions about religion and religiously affiliated institutions, appear absurd, but are in fact true. Both contradictions and paradoxes are determined by the context and the point of view of the observer. For example, where a study participant identified a paradox, someone with experiences in a different culture may have identified the same phenomenon as a self-evident truth. [End Page 385]

A word of caution is in order. No culture is monolithic. There was no absolute consistency of perception and experience. The contradictions I summarize in this report were the predominant patterns of perceptions and experiences of those who participated in the study. These were all working to create a more inclusive environment for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students. Therefore, these contradictions existed in their perceptions and do not represent contradictions between those working for inclusion and those resistant to inclusion.

Contradictions

1. The institution was perceived as being focused on service to others, spirituality, caring for the individual, and educating the whole student, yet lesbian, gay, and bisexual students experienced hatred, pain, loneliness, anger, helplessness, rejection, and isolation in that setting. Furthermore, they did not see themselves as having avenues to discuss or explore their sexuality.

There was near consensus among the participants in the study that the institution encouraged service to others and promoted a sense of "the spirit." The focus on service was evidenced through college publications, themes in new student orientation, student conversations, and many opportunities to volunteer on campus and in the community. The focus on spirituality transcended the notion of religion and emphasized a personal search for a relationship with God. The specific program most often mentioned by students was the formal retreat program conducted through campus ministry. Exact numbers were difficult to determine, but it appeared that most students at the institution participated in at least one retreat during their years on campus.

The director of the counseling center and other faculty stressed the institution's concern about the individual student and adeptness at caring for individuals. Students, faculty, and administrators described how the institution, especially as reflected through the philosophy and mission of the founding order, was focused on the education and development of the whole student. Student affairs professionals commented on the "pleasant surprise" of arriving at an institution that both talked about holistic development and worked toward it. However, lesbian, gay, and bisexual students experienced a very different world. A lesbian student recalled:

When I first arrived here there was no mention of words, like gay, lesbian, etc. I felt isolated. . . . The total mind set was "this does not exist here." I heard no mention of it from anybody. . . . If you don't hear it from anybody else, you can't ever get a feel for who's going to support you and who wouldn't. . . . It made me very closed. . . . I could not put that much emotional attachment into somebody who I was afraid was going to turn around and reject me.

Most lesbian, gay, and bisexual students and their allies saw and experienced the focus on service to others and on spirituality; in fact, many of [End Page 386] these students were involved in activities related to these cultural elements. However, these students also perceived and, in some cases, directly experienced hatred and anger directed toward homosexuality. This contradiction caused varying degrees of pain, loneliness, and helplessness among lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. A psychology professor observed:

When I arrived three years ago, there weren't any visible signs of students being out. . . . I knew because [at the time] I was a chaplain in one of the residence halls. Several students had attempted to take their own lives during my first year here, all because of sexual orientation.

In addition to this former residence chaplain, campus ministers and counselors were aware of suicide attempts by lesbian, gay, and bisexual students; they and the faculty members I interviewed were aware that many of these students left the institution before completing their degrees. Many lesbian, gay, and bisexual students felt rejected and isolated. They thought that sexual orientation was taboo as a topic and invisible as a difference. They longed for ways to discuss or explore their sexuality--an important element of their development. A campus minister and cofounder of People Against Homophobia commented:

I would think the homophobic atmosphere was so threatening that no one could even mention that they had had a homosexual thought or incident in their life to anybody without fear of being labeled and branded and ostracized.

It is important to note that some individual lesbian, gay, and bisexual students and faculty personally experienced the value, "caring for the individual." In each of these instances, their individuality transcended concerns about their sexual orientation. However, each of these individuals was likewise perceived as "normal" (that is, culturally conventional), and each was known to and cared about by the community before he or she came out. For their friends and acquaintances, their sexual orientation became a part of the total individual. Nevertheless, they and other participants related stories of students who left the institution rather than remain in such an oppressive climate.

2. Many students departed from stringent church prohibitions against birth control and premarital sex, yet uncritically accepted perceived church teachings on homosexuality as a chosen and sinful behavior.

Many students used the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality to validate their negative beliefs about homosexuality. One faculty member summarized what she perceived as the typical student's argument: "My religion finds it reprehensible, period. It's in the Bible." However, faculty and campus ministers clearly saw a contradiction in that many students were willing to depart from Church views on birth control and premarital sex. [End Page 387] Some perceived that students seemed even more willing to take a nonorthodox stand on abortion, something of a litmus test for devoutness, than on issues related to sexual orientation. As one faculty member stated:

It just seems that students are willing to depart from the church on abortion, on birth control, on divorce. . . . [Such] very important . . . heart-wrenching kind[s] of issues. But they're not willing to depart from the church concerning homosexuality. In fact, they call up the church, and they call up Catholic doctrine to defend that [homosexuality] is unnatural, immoral, indecent, obscene.

3. The school emphasized multiculturalism and diversity, yet avoided and resisted dealing with sexual orientation.

Like most institutions of higher education, St. James struggled with issues of multiculturalism and diversity; it actively tried to diversify its student body and create inclusive communities. It had recently hired an Affirmative Action Officer/Director of Multicultural Affairs, had approved an affirmative action statement, held a faculty summer institute on diversity, and hired an admissions staff member whose specific mission was to help recruit students of color. Residence life and student activities staff emphasized multicultural programming. In short, there was a consensus that accepting diversity was a priority but also a consensus that achieving that goal would require much more work. The Director of the Counseling Center observed insightfully: "[Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals] were the only safe group[s] to bash publicly. . . . As we became more tolerant [of people of color] it became worse for homosexuals, because they became the only scapegoat left."

Many people struggled with issues of diversity, and there was some resistance in the student body to the concepts of multiculturalism and diversity. Many faculty and staff specifically excluded sexual orientation as a legitimate aspect of diversity; the student body's reaction was stronger and less masked, as indicated by a variety of incidents: graffiti on walls and student doors, tearing down flyers, and harassing phone calls.

One particularly symbolic incident mentioned by several people concerned a large, centrally located poster advertising a student senate "Diversity Forum." In this forum, student groups dealing with diversity, multiculturalism, or marginalization came together to discuss their issues. Someone ripped off the section of the poster naming Students Against Homophobia. The advisor to Students Against Homophobia explained:

One corner of the poster had been ripped off and taken away and that was the corner that said Students Against Homophobia. . . . It was kind of telling in that we weren't just written on. We were torn off and taken away. It wasn't even like they threw us on the ground. It was literally like they made us nonexistent.

In a separate interview, a sociology professor described the same event: [End Page 388]

Of course, nobody knows who does it. Nobody claims to do it. And they didn't actually do what they do with the women's history stuff, which is to do junk on it, to attack the poster. Here it's trying to keep it invisible. . . . They don't want to have an acknowledged presence of gays and lesbians here.

Thus, many in the campus community refused to include sexual orientation in their definition of multiculturalism and diversity; but as the emphasis on highlighting and accepting differences intensified, people concerned about sexual minorities saw this exclusion as a growing contradiction.

As with most contradictions, a question that arises is, "How can these contradictory elements of the culture coexist at this institution?" That question will be addressed below. However, it is necessary to first discuss some of the paradoxes that were discovered in the culture.

Paradoxes

1. Support and allies emerged from campus ministry and the Department of Religious Studies. A professor of Religious Studies offered this evaluation:

The campus ministry office has been very supportive. . . . I have talked of the bad side of the church, . . but there's also the good side. And the good side sees [addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students] as a pastoral issue.

Given the Church's public position on homosexuality, it could be seen as surprising that support and allies emerged from the campus ministry office and the Department of Religious Studies. One might expect individuals in these places to be the staunchest "defenders of the faith" (as perceived by most people). However, one campus minister was co-founder of People Against Homophobia. The recently appointed academic dean, whom alliance students identified as a strong supporter, had served in the Department of Religious Studies for many years; another faculty member in this department was also cited as a supporter. How could this be?

Several reasons became evident in the course of the interviews. In addition to the campus ministry's emphasis on the institution's pastoral mission, ministry members worked very closely with students and could see the negative impact of the campus culture on lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Both campus ministers and the members of the Department of Religious Studies also more clearly understood the Church's formal position on homosexuality. While recognizing that the Church's position could not be called inclusive and that members of the hierarchy (examples given included Bishops O'Connor in New York and Daley in Brooklyn) publicly condoned homophobia, these ministers and faculty also recognized that formal Church teachings did not condone homophobia, harassment, and rejection of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Several of these individuals [End Page 389] also realized that their positions protected them in that they were less suspect, had more credibility, and were seen as less likely to have an ax to grind (i.e., a political agenda) regarding the issue of sexual orientation.

2. Many of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual students and their student allies were "serious" Catholics and several felt called by God to work on issues related to sexual orientation.

One gay student expressed intense feelings:

I have always felt deep down that God accepts what I am, that I would know in my heart if [being gay] was wrong. For a long time I struggled with it. I thought it was a sin. I thought this must be a phase or that I am going to grow out of this, because it can't be right. As I came to realize that's what I was, I also realized that God accepts me as that. In my personal relationship with Him and prayer I just know. It is okay for me.

Most of the students in the study, both lesbian, gay, and bisexual and their heterosexual allies, were "reconciled" Catholics, in that they had reconciled their sexual orientation (or their acceptance of nonheterosexual orientations) with their relationship with God and the fact that they were Catholics. The student senate president indicated that "good Catholics would be against homophobia" yet also realized that others who did not share his acceptance of nonheterosexual orientations would perceive his views as a contradiction. One of the lesbian student leaders indicated that the core of the reconciliation for her was "a personal relationship with God, not just a relationship with God as mediated through the Catholic Church." The reconciled Catholics were more likely to see the church as the body of people, than as the hierarchy. One of the campus ministers also differentiated between what he termed "Gospel Catholics/Christians" and "Paulist Catholics/Christians." Gospel Catholics/Christians had, as a priority, living according to the values espoused and lived by Jesus Christ and as reflected in the gospels. Students involved in the study specifically mentioned "loving your neighbor as yourself," respecting and accepting others, promoting peace, and not judging others. The campus minister saw the Paulists as more rule-bound, judgmental, and "hard-assed," attitudes he perceived in Paul's letters in the New Testament. Beyond reconciling their faith, many of the students indicated that they felt called to do their work regarding sexual orientation. One of the gay student leaders affirmed: "I still have very strong faith. I really do believe in God and Jesus Christ and that's a big part of my life. I feel a higher force guiding me."

3. Less overt homophobia meant a more dangerous climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. I recognize that this sentence seems counterintuitive. The logical conclusion from less overt homophobia should be a less dangerous climate, not a more dangerous climate. However, less overt homophobia should not imply less homophobia. It is just less obvious. Obstacles [End Page 390] are easier to avoid when you can see them. If they "go underground" they become more dangerous.

The experiences at St. James indicate that the movement from a homophobic, hostile environment to an inclusive, open environment is not linear. Apparently, the establishment of these groups and the activities and programs they generated, suppressed overt homophobic actions and speech. The participants indicated that they heard fewer "fag" jokes; as others learned they were involved in working on the issue of sexual orientation, they became more "careful" around them. This made it more difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students to differentiate among homophobes, allies, and potential allies. They had to be even more careful about to whom they came out and how they did it. For instance, if I am a closeted lesbian and you are telling dyke jokes, I will assume that you are a homophobe and will not come out to you (even if you are my "friend"). However, if you are a homophobe who has learned to not say anything but still hates and fears lesbians, I might assume you are a "safe" person to come out to with potentially disastrous results.

4. Institutional leaders could not lead.

Most of the participants in this study realized that the president of the institution was supportive of the alliance students and their activities. They also realized that they could not ask him to publicly act on that support in ways that would bring him into conflict with powerful constituencies peripheral to (e.g., the Board of Trustees, alumni, parents) and external to (e.g., local priests and parishes, possible funding sources) the institution. This particular paradox makes six of the seven ways that Peterson et al. (1986) cited to change culture (i.e., creating new units, changing clientele or staff significantly, using a visionary/interpretive leadership style, redefining strategy and mission, reorganizing the institution, and using cataclysmic events and conditions to refocus institutional goals and priorities) unworkable for the alliance at St. James. The only people who had the power and authority to institute these changes--the upper administration--were the most constrained from acting, whether they wanted to or not.

5. A strong conservative, homophobic reaction meant that some progress was being made.

The backlash against the efforts of the various groups came in the form of articles in the conservative student newspaper and some apparent (though difficult to quantify) increase in anonymous harassment of perceived lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Progress meant that repressed feelings and opinions counter to those of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual students and their allies were being expressed and could, therefore, be debated and analyzed. It meant that the values and assumptions of other members of the community were being challenged. Cultural change is possible when values, assumptions, and belief systems shared by segments of the community [End Page 391] are brought to a conscious level, when contradictions are identified and examined, and when values and beliefs that transcend or eliminate the contradiction are embraced by members of the community. Although the educational and service activities related to sexual orientation greatly diminished during the fall 1993 semester, this reduction does not mean that the opposition from conservative forces represented a lack of progress. Progress, however, does not guarantee success and lasting change.

6. Easy, visible changes resulted in no substantial change in the culture.

The facts that several groups formed, that activities and programs were presented and fairly well-attended, and that sexual orientation was added to the college's nondiscrimination statement caused some of the participants to assume that the culture was being changed on campus into one that was less hostile, closed, and oppressive to lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. But this assumption was apparently not the case. Whereas some students thought lasting change was being made in the culture of the institution, many of the faculty and staff in the study saw it as a temporary change in climate and feared that the dominant culture would reassert itself. There was some evidence during the fall 1993 interviews that such a reassertion was taking place. Other than Students Against Homophobia (which in November had met for the first time since the spring), the other groups had either disbanded or stopped meeting. Other than at residence life training, programs about sexual orientation was nonexistent. The GLBA never formally coalesced, and no students were working to continue the group.

The paradoxes described in this section can be grouped into three categories. First, some presented unexpected benefits: the allies from campus ministry and the Department of Religious Studies, for example, and the important role that faith in God and personal spirituality played in the lives of students working on this issue. Second were barriers to those working on the issue of sexual orientation, specifically the fact that leaders could not lead. And third was the fact that these paradoxes represented realities of which those working on this issue needed to be aware. Some of these paradoxes could be useful in addressing the contradictions found in the culture.

Maintaining and Addressing Contradictions

This section extrapolates some ideas from the study's analysis, moving further from the data. Consequently, they must be considered tentative and judged for the soundness of their arguments. Their purpose is to provide a conceptual foundation for focusing on the issue of culture change by addressing two questions: (a) How are the contradictions able to persist? and (b) What is needed to eliminate them? [End Page 392]

At least two issues apparently underlie the answers to each of these questions--visibility and cognitive development. A contradiction is able to persist if the contradicting elements are not brought together in the same context or if the elements can be explained in such a way that they are not seen as conflicting. Bringing the conflicting elements together in such a way that individuals perceive the contradiction creates dissonance. Most individuals want to reduce dissonance through somehow eliminating the contradiction. This can be done in one of two ways--assimilating the information or accommodating to the information (Piaget, 1976). Assimilation occurs when the contradiction is explained in a manner consistent with existing beliefs, enabling the assimilator to maintain or discount the contradiction ("Well, gay students shouldn't be allowed to attend St. James anyway."). These reactions do not challenge the underlying cultural values. On the other hand, recognizing and accepting the contradiction can result in an accommodation that changes the perception of the culture ("Gee, I guess we aren't really focused on holistic student development after all.") and may produce efforts to change the culture and reduce the contradiction.

At St. James, the most effective way to maintain the contradictions was by keeping the topic of sexual orientation and the existence of sexual minorities invisible on campus; thus, the contradictions were not apparent. Given the school's pride about holistic education, intellectuality, and academic rigor, a culture resistant to inclusivity could best be maintained by keeping the issue of sexual orientation invisible. When participants tried to make the issue visible, the second contributing element operated: Many students simply did not see the contradictions. This "blindness" is an issue of cognitive development.

Invisibility

For most of the history of St. James College, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and the topic of sexual orientation were invisible on campus. Invisibility was a cultural artifact that reflected values related to heterosexism, homophobia, and discomfort with sexuality. Invisibility was the defining characteristic for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students who attended the institution prior to 1991. None of the faculty and staff in the study who had been at the institution for more than a few years (and several had been at the institution for more than twelve) could remember when a lesbian, gay, or bisexual student, faculty, or staff member was out on campus. During 1991-1993, the issue became more visible, due to the new organizations, the activities they sponsored, and the number of people who came out. However, the institutional weight continued to press toward reducing visibility. The less visible the topic of sexual orientation, the less apparent were the contradictions that existed in the culture, apparently because sex in itself is a taboo topic. [End Page 393]

Cognitive Development

One member of Students Against Homophobia, during an interview, captured the bewilderment of many at some students' inability to question a received religious position:

Some people just believe things, because they were told to believe them, but have no idea why. I mean, it's less than explaining why homophobia's right and [lesbian, gay, and bisexual students] are wrong. It's "Well, because I was told to believe that." They can't give you a solid answer as to why it's right or it's wrong. Because they've never thought about it themselves, but just believe what they've been taught and haven't questioned it any further.

The ability to reconcile contradictions is apparently related to individual cognitive development. I made no attempt to measure any student's level of cognitive development; however, participants reported that, on issues related to sexual orientation, some fellow students accepted without question the teachings of the Catholic Church as mediated through local parishes, parents, Sunday school teachers, and priests. Obear (1991) points out that people with homophobic attitudes tend to have high levels of authoritarianism and low levels of tolerance for ambiguity, both characteristics of the early positions in Perry's (1970) scheme of cognitive development.

However, it also seems likely that some students can deal with most academic and social issues with a fair amount of cognitive sophistication yet leave unexamined and unchallenged the information about sexual orientation they received from their church and family. This argument is related to Piaget's (1976) assertion that development first occurs in one area of cognition and that this new form of thinking or sense-making then influences other areas of cognition. He refers to the process of generalization as "horizontal decalage." These particular students may be subject to strong external influences that keep some areas of cognition separate from the overall development that is occurring. These external influences include a societal culture that has difficulty exploring issues of sexuality in general, discomfort with sexual orientation in particular, and the aforementioned invisibility of the issue. Certainly, students who, overall, are in early stages of cognitive development (i.e., Perry's [1970] positions related to dualism, King and Kitchener's [1994] pre-reflective stages, and Baxter Magolda's [1992] absolute and transitional knowing stages) can simply invoke the authority of the church, as they perceive it, to dismiss the contradictions as fallacious.

Students at a more advanced state of cognitive development could not, typically, simply deny the contradictions once they became visible. Instead, their cognitive task lay in resolving the dilemma of those contradictions. Students at earlier levels of cognitive development were less likely to perceive the contradictions even when the issue of sexual orientation was visible. [End Page 394]

Implications

Because this study was conducted at a Catholic college, the specific religious issues and interpretations reflect a Catholic perspective. However, I have phrased the following implications to help administrators on other religiously affiliated campuses consider how they might help create more inclusive cultures at their institutions. If, out of Peterson et al.'s (1986) list seven ways in which a culture can be changed, six do not apply to St. James's situation (and, perhaps, to most religiously affiliated institutions), then what possibilities are inherent in the seventh method: using conflict in creative ways to highlight differences between espoused and enacted values?

As I pointed out in the introduction, ways of meeting the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students that might be effective on secular campuses may be countercultural at RAIs. These include such actions as changing the institution's mission statement to specifically address issues of sexual orientation, creating a campus-wide task force on this issue (Obear, 1991), increasing gay and lesbian library resources, conducting orientation activities for gay and lesbian students, and distributing literature to prospective students about gay and lesbian organizations on and off campus (Wall & Evans, 1991). Instead, I suggest exploring the boundaries of the institutional culture related to sexual orientation and loosening cultural restrictions by pointing out possible inconsistencies in the current culture. Washington and Evans (1991) argue that the steps to becoming an ally are awareness, knowledge, skills, and action. At RAIs, these steps should include awareness of the influence of institutional culture on people's actions, knowledge that contradictions and paradoxes might exist in the culture, the skill of analyzing the culture for contradictions and paradoxes, and the action of presenting them in skillful ways to campus constituents for their consideration and analysis.

1. Find the contradictions in the culture of the institution related to sexual orientation. Start with those presented here and consider whether they exist at one's institution. Look for other contradictions and discuss them with members of the institution. Attempt to engage students on a cognitive level to recognize and reflect on the contradictions and what these contradictions might say about the mission of the institution.

2. Discover the paradoxes that exist at the institution. This step requires being aware of one's assumptions, such as "campus ministry will never help on this issue." Some paradoxes will result in unexpected benefits, support, and allies. Others will represent obstacles with which to reckon or realities about which to be aware.

3. Increase the visibility of issues related to sexual orientation. Contradictions are difficult to maintain when they become visible. Bring together [End Page 395] people willing to work on this issue, increase its visibility, and discuss the contradictions inherent in the culture. People Against Homophobia and Students Against Homophobia at St. James increased the visibility of the issue merely by existing. Their activities furthered the visibility of the issue and, in turn, made the contradictions more visible.

4. Intentionally and consciously use elements of the culture to introduce dissonance about the experience of sexual minorities into the experiences of straight students, faculty, and staff. Commented a sociology professor:

I like to hang on the real old forties and fifties idea from student personnel that Catholic education is education for the full person. . . . I say that because of bringing [together] the notion of diversity and gay, lesbian, and bisexual students. All one had to do was remind people that [educating the full person] was our mission, and there was just no answer to it. [But] it really is just a foot in the door; that's not really transforming people or changing people.

Another way the alliance at St. James used culture was creating social and affective learning experiences focused on the cultural norm of "care for the individual." The issue was personalized through the stories of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. For the most part, these students were religious and spiritual young people who volunteered to talk about their experiences in psychology and sociology classes. Rhoads (1994), who discusses curricular solutions to problems of sexual orientation, recommends teaching about the lives of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The students who presented in class were living examples who helped other students better understand the pain, loneliness, helplessness, and rejection that lesbian, gay, and bisexual students experienced from their institution, their teachers, their family, and their religion. The students were faced a contradiction and a paradox: first, their institution prided itself on caring for people, but it was not caring for these lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and second, gay and lesbian people could be thoroughly religious and spiritual, not evil and sinful. Skillful presentation of contradictions can facilitate cognitive development, permitting the underlying values of the culture to be discussed and analyzed.

A new set of students arrives on campus each year, so persistence and leadership are paramount. For a variety of reasons, people involved at St. James were unable to persist. Another problem is that some people with strong beliefs on the issue (e.g., parents, Board of Trustees, alumni, local clergy) could not be challenged to reflect on the contradictions that might exist in the culture of the institution.

There is no one right place to start trying to change the cultures of RAIs to be more inclusive of sexual minorities. The work can start on individual campuses, in one's place of worship, or elsewhere in society. It can start with the positive elements of the culture (e.g., care for the individual, a focus on holistic development) and encourage the dispersion of these elements [End Page 396] into all areas of the institution, especially into the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Higher education professionals must keep in mind that each institution exists in a specific cultural context that extends beyond the boundaries of its campus. These external forces will come into play if the institution changes too much. However, it is hoped that a skillful presentation of contradictions can lead to further cognitive development on the part of the individual, a change in attitudes related to sexual orientation, and, eventually, to changing the culture.

Patrick G. Love is Assistant Professor and Advisor of the Higher Education and Student Personnel program at Kent State University. His other research interests include student socialization and learning, and applying technology to alternative pedagogies. He is coauthor, with Anne Goodsell Love, of Enhancing Student Learning: Intellectual, Social, and Emotional Integration (1995), ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 4 (Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development). He describes himself as a liberal Christian with professional connections at St. James.

References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

D'Emilio, J. (1992). Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the university. New York: Routledge.

Dobbert, M. L. (1984). Ethnographic research: Theory and application for modern schools and societies. New York: Praeger.

Estanek, S. (1996). A study of student affairs practice at Catholic colleges and universities. Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, 16(2), 63-72.

Evans, N. J., & Wall, V. A. (1991). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In ADAMHA (Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration) Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, Vol. 3 (pp. 110-142). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (DHHS Pub# [ADM] 89-1623)

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1) Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Love, P. G. (1991). The organizational culture of a student affairs department. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Love, P. G. (November, 1993). Organizational and individual factors in the establishment of a lesbian, gay, and bisexual organization at a church-related college. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Pittsburgh, PA.

Maret, S. M. (1984). Attitudes of fundamentalists toward homosexuality. Psychology Reports, 55(1), 205-206.

Norris, W. P. (1992). Liberal attitudes and homophobic acts: The paradoxes of homosexual experience in a liberal institution. In K. M. Harbeck (ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula (pp. 81-120). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Nugent, R., & Gramick, J. (1989). Homosexuality: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish issues; A fishbone tale. In R. Hasbany (Ed.) Homosexuality and religion (pp. 7-47.). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Obear, K. (1991). Homophobia. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 39-66). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Peterson, M. W., Cameron, K. S., Mets, L. A., Jones, P., & Ettington, D. (1986). The organizational context for teaching and learning: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Piaget, J. (1976). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.

Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The struggle for a queer identity. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Saunders, J. M., & Valente, S. M. (1987). Suicide risk among gay men and lesbians: A review. Death Studies, 11(1), 1-23.

Siehl, C. (1985). After the founder: An opportunity to manage culture. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 125-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wall, V. A., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Using psychosocial development theories to understand and work with gay and lesbian persons. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 67-78). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Washington, J., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (eds.) Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 195-204). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Whitt, E. J., & Kuh, G. D. (1991). The use of qualitative methods in a team approach to multiple institution studies. Review of Higher Education, 14, 317-337.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]