A friend writes, "I'm coordinating a safe-space training at [an urban public university]. One participant stated that she felt she was a strong ally, but her religious beliefs dictate that homosexuality is a sin. What should I do? Can I deny her a safe-space sticker, or ask her not to advise students on religious issues?"
This is a hard question.
It's hard partly because of its legal implications. Georgia Tech, another state school, recently lost a lawsuit because its safe-space program distributed literature uniformly criticizing traditional interpretations of the Bible. Not surprisingly, a federal judge ruled that this practice violated the First Amendment by favoring particular religious viewpoints. (Georgia Tech has kept its safe-space program but dropped the religious literature.)
Legal matters aside, the question raises difficult policy issues. What counts as "safe"?
Safe-space programs generally involve a school-sponsored diversity training focusing on LGBT issues. Upon completing it, participants receive a sticker to display on their office doors announcing their "ally" status.
Given how often religion is used as a weapon, I can understand why many LGBT students would not feel "safe" while being judged as sinners. We should never underestimate the potential damage done by telling youth, at a delicate stage in identity formation, that acting on their deep longings could lead to eternal separation from God.
In contemplating my friend's question, I mainly thought of those vulnerable students, and how best to protect them. I also thought of my friend John.
John is a faculty member at a small private liberal arts college. He is an evangelical Christian who believes that homosexual conduct conflicts with God's plan as revealed in the bible. And yet John defies easy stereotypes. He supports civil marriage equality, decries the various ways religion is used to harm LGBT people, and avoids "heteronormative language" (his words) in his classroom.
While he believes that homosexual conduct (not to mention plenty of heterosexual and non-sexual conduct) is sinful, he also believes that all humans-himself included-have an imperfect grasp of God's will, and that we should generally strive to respect other people's life choices and give them wide latitude in forging their own paths. John and his wife have welcomed me in their home, and during grace before the meal, his wife asked for God's blessing on me, my partner Mark, and our relationship. (For the record, I did not take the latter to imply approval for every aspect of our relationship.)
In light of all I know about John and his loving treatment of LGBT persons, I can think of few spaces "safer" than his office. Any program that would disqualify him draws the circle of "safe spaces" too narrowly.
Moreover, there are good strategic reasons for wanting to make the circle of self-proclaimed allies as inclusive as possible, consistent with the well-being of LGBT students. We need people like John to make their presence known.
Yet I am not suggesting that we draw the circle so broadly as to rob "safe space" of any real meaning. Any student in any campus office-stickered or not-should expect to be treated with respect and professionalism. Presumably, the safe-space sticker denotes venues that substantially exceed that bare minimum (as John's office would).
So how does one draw the circle broadly enough to include John and other conservative religious allies while excluding those who might rant about gays burning in hell?
As with any policy question involving human beings, there's no perfect formula here (just as there are no perfect people). To some extent, the desired group will be somewhat self-selecting. Those interested in condemning LGBT people to hell generally don't attend voluntary pro-gay diversity trainings.
Yet there are also steps one can take to tailor the circle. My recommendation would be to include, among various other elements of a pledge taken by safe-space training participants, something along the following lines:
"I understand that my own values and beliefs may differ from those of students who seek me out for a 'safe space,' and will refer students to appropriate resources given their particular values, beliefs, interests and desires."
The idea here is that students who wish to retreat to a "narrower" circle will be assisted in doing so. Note that religious people offer such assistance all the time. Think, for example, of the Christian who helpfully directs a student to the Buddhist Student Center, despite her personal conviction that eternal salvation is through Christ alone.
On this approach, students who want pro-gay religious literature can receive it and evaluate it for themselves. At the same time, those who want the advice of fellow conservative evangelicals, for example, or fellow Orthodox Jews, can receive it and evaluate it for themselves.
Admittedly, my recommendation would allow conservative religious students to request and receive-in a designated "safe space"-literature of a sort that's often deeply damaging to LGBT people. But the approach is preferable to the alternatives: a public university's (illegally) favoring particular religious viewpoints, on the one hand, or its becoming silent on religious issues-the Georgia Tech solution-on the other.
Universities are places for free exchange of ideas. As long as that's done in a compassionate manner that respects student autonomy, it should never be considered "unsafe."