Putting the “university” in “Catholic university”

Written for the UST Cauldron, published April 21, 2005.

UST is not the same school it was two years ago. I can see these changes in the student body just as much as I see it in the new mall or new buildings.

I feel like I have seen more gay and lesbian students in and around campus this year than I have since I began attending UST. Actually, I think it’s great that there are so many students who feel welcome on campus regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.

The problem with the homosexuality issue at UST starts with the fact that this is a Catholic university. Its mission is explicitly written as one that is “committed to the Catholic intellectual tradition and the dialogue between faith and reason.” It works to “foster engagement in a diverse, collaborative community,” as well as “educate students to think critically, communicate effectively, succeed professionally and lead ethically.”

I understand the Catholic mission, and have accepted it as part of my education. However, we must realize that the gay community isn’t one that’s bashful or hidden, especially when the school is located in the third largest gay neighborhood in the United States. Our school is mere blocks from the major throughway of the city’s Gay Pride parade. Would the presence of The Symposium, a club for a real and perhaps growing demographic of the school, threaten the school’s theological agenda? I can’t imagine that an organization made up of a handful of students would suddenly be a menace to and endanger a well-rounded Catholic education.

It’s because of my time at UST that I have come to understand the Church’s approach to universality and the importance of discourse. Gaudiem et Spes paragraph 21 says that no government should make the distinction between believers and nonbelievers, and that both “ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live; such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue.”

Yes, the Catholic Church does not approve of homosexuality. But does the University then not approve of its homosexual students? The University’s disclaimer in the Student Handbook reads, “The University of St. Thomas is committed to providing equal educational opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or veteran status.” This catalog of minorities outlines the fact that the school offers a chance for an education to anyone willing to learn, with a single exception.

Respectfully, I would suggest adding “sexual orientation” to that handbook list. If the University feels it necessary to protect men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Catholics, Episcopalians, Muslims, teenagers, adults and pretty much every other demographic, why not for gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender students?

Students should not have to drop their own values and conform to the University’s in order to succeed at UST. I don’t think that the University would ever consider denying admission to students because of their sexual orientation. If it did, however, it must be aware that it does a serious disservice to both the very concept of a university as well as to this school’s devoutness to Catholic principles of justice, universality and acceptance. So perhaps the question is what principle matters more: the intrinsic value of universality or the teaching of homosexuality as an aberration? I may not be a theologian, but I gather from my exposure to Catholicism throughout my life that universality trumps discrimination, especially in an educational environment.

It is because we are a Catholic university that we should embrace diversity, in whatever shape it may come. Allowing gay students to converge in support of one another does not hurt the school’s goals or values as a Catholic university. Gay or straight, we each pay $565 an hour and $80 in activity fees, and we all chose to attend a Catholic university and accept the theological and philosophical basis of its education.

The school cannot presuppose that theological basis for our education should always bleed into non-academic areas of student life. Organizations and clubs are distinct from the administration. I think that while I submit to the fact that this institution provides a Catholic education, if it truly seeks to offer a universal education, it has an obligation to represent all students regardless of sexual orientation.