Keri and I were visiting Bethel University’s campus recently, and were intrigued by signs posted on certain doors signaling “safe-places” for conversations about same-sex attraction. Is this a growing phenomenon on all university campuses, or unique to Christian institutions where there is more of a stigma against same-sex relationships?
I was therefore very interested when I saw the following letter from my old boss, Dr. David Clark, now Provost of Bethel University.
The following is an open letter that Provost David Clark sent to the Bethel University faculty. What do you think of Dr. Clark’s message? Agree or disagree? Click below to keep reading…
Friends,
Recently I’ve seen a sign or two on office doors indicating that “homophobic speech is not tolerated” and that “conversations about same-sex attraction are safe” in those offices. I’d like to offer a personal reflection (though I’m aware that my title affects how this is read). I personally feel quizzical about these signs, and I think the reason is that they don’t go far enough.
Here’s what I mean. When I see a door sign that says “President’s Office,” this tells me that no other space is the president’s office. “Women” on a door means this space alone is reserved as a women’s restroom, and no other space is so reserved. A sign that says “homophobic speech not tolerated here” suggests that such speech is tolerated elsewhere. If hateful speech is tolerated nowhere on campus, then a sign declaring that it’s not tolerated in this office is misleading.
From my perspective, “homophobic” speech should not be tolerated on our campus. (For clarity, Bethel holds that same-sex activity is not God’s plan. Some outside our community may say that just affirming our view is “hateful” or counts as “homophobic speech.” I don’t agree; simply stating our Bethel stance is not a case of “hate” or “homophobic speech.”) The signs seem to imply that because hateful speech is generally tolerated at Bethel, we need safe zones. This troubles me. If indeed such speech is tolerated, then the right response is to get clear that we do not tolerate hate speech of any sort on our campus.
When I see a door sign which declares that this office is safe for discussion of same-sex attraction, I wonder about other issues. Are they less important, or is discussion of them not welcome? What about struggles with gambling? Dissension? Academic cheating? Extramarital intercourse? Intolerance? Selfishness? Pornography? Eating disorders? Spiritual lethargy? Pride? Unteachableness? Abusive past? To me, though these signs trumpet safety for hard conversations about one topic, I hear a deafening silence about other topics. Why lift up only one issue?
In my view, our Student Life, Campus Ministries, and Counseling Center professionals, among others, are empowered to engage in respectful conversation on all of these topics. Knowing what I know about Jay, I know the president’s office is a safe place for difficult personal conversations. I hope all spaces at Bethel are safe for such dialogues.
You may ask: “So what happens if someone raises an issue I’m not equipped to handle?” If the issue is behavioral, I would say, “This is obviously important for you, and that makes it important to me. I admire your courage to share it. Honesty can be a first step toward healing. Unless you’re a danger to yourself or to others, I won’t share this with anyone without your permission. I’d like to refer you to a Counseling Center, Campus Ministries, or Student Life professional whom I know has the expertise to help. I’ll go with you if you want. No matter what, I will support you and pray for you.”
I dream that our university will be redemptive in responding to all personal issues. By “redemptive,” I mean at least two things. We do have moral boundaries. Being redemptive requires moral boundaries; a person cannot be redeemed from failure unless we have criteria to define “failure.” I believe sexual activity or erotic behavior outside of marriage is harmful to those who do it (not feelings or temptations or even orientations), outside God’s plan, and therefore morally wrong. Redemption requires acknowledging failure and choosing a new path. We do discipline in appropriate ways, because discipline is an act of love that hopes for a new beginning. Discipline isn’t primarily about enforcing rules. It’s about helping a person grow into all God has for that person.
So I think these door signs send multiple wrong messages. For one, they implicitly stigmatize anyone who doesn’t put up a similar sign. And further, they imply that we only have a few, small safe spaces on campus for deep conversations. I contest this. Quest addressed same-sex attraction last October 29, and a forum on sexuality is scheduled for March 4. Student Life offers multiple opportunities for discussing relationships through the Relationship Education office among others. More specifically, staff professionals in many offices are ready to walk through tough personal issues with students. And all offices (I hope) are safe for serious and respectful conversations. The provost’s office certainly is.
I believe we’re a community that is learning to respond redemptively, by the Spirit’s power, not just to one issue, but to the shortcomings any of us experiences. We need many places on campus where we can all receive the correction of the community and grow into the full maturity that God desires for us. We sit together at the foot of the cross of Christ, for we all have our failings. Our failings may differ, but we are together on the journey of redemption. By his grace, each of us has the hope of redemption.
David K. Clark, Ph.D.
Executive Vice President and Provost
Discover more from Jeremy L. Berg
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jeremy L. Berg 
I was doing a tag search for “signs on doors” and found your blog.
Just kidding, Jeremy. Dr. Clark is brilliant. Thanks for sharing the letter.
I appreciate his response and thank God for it.
Those signs aren’t unique the Christian colleges. We have them everywhere at Hamline. It would save them paper to just put “Homophobic zone” signs on the doors of the people who aren’t supportive of the LGBT community.
1.) No these signs are not special to Christian Colleges, we have them at MSUM and I’ve seen them at Normandale.
2.) These signs do not mean that hate speech is ok else where, it just means that while hate-free speech might be a campus wide policy, it is hard to enforce campus wide without trampling on people’s rights. These signs just state that in that office or classroom the policy will be enforced more strongly than the rest of campus.
3.) Yes, while most campus’ have counseling and personal growth offices or even a GLBT center that are there to help students with such issues free of cost, that doesn’t mean a student will feel comfortable talking to someone they don’t know about something as personal as their sexuality. But if a student trust a professor who has this sign on their office door, they might be more likely to talk about it. I have a friend who went to her Psychology professor to talk about her sexuality over the counseling center, just because she trusted him and knew he would be discrete about it.
4.) It’d be unreasonable to expect all teachers and staff at a college to be willing to delve into personal issues with students. And it’s just as unreasonable to say that no teachers can help students with personal issues. So these signs are a helpful way for students to know where to go. That sign suggests that the person who hung it is open enough to listen and help the student without judging them or damning them. Especially on a christian campus a student is scared that their feelings are wrong or evil and they need to talk to someone who will talk them through it and make them feel ok.
5.) Just because an area is deemed safe doesn’t mean other areas aren’t. if a place is deemed a computer lab does that mean it’s the only place you can be on a computer? If a place is called a cafeteria does it mean you can’t eat anywhere else?
6.) Just for the sake of argument. The APA has declared that therapy to “switch” someone’s sexuality is unethical.
Thanks for your thoughtful insights, Becky. Peace!
This whole concept is fascinating to me. I’m not a college student (anymore) and can’t speak to current campus attitudes, though I would imagine it’s a bit more accepting than it was for me 20 years ago, even at a state university. Ms. Stine’s comments make a lot of sense to me.
Clearly there’s an element, however, that Dr. Clark is missing though. While I loudly applaud his thoughtful and respectful presentation, he does not seem to recognize that there’s something in the culture or beliefs or attitudes, etc. of the school population (faculty and students,) that prompted the first of these signs to be created. That’s the issue that needs addressing.