The voice of Reach OUT leadership has been loud and clear this semester. They have brought a resolution for recognition before SGA and made movements toward applying for ICC membership. This membership, if approved, would mark the first clear policy stance by Seaver College on an LGBT group. The voice of the administration, however, has been neither loud nor clear on this subject. This uncertainty only hurts Pepperdine’s reputation and students. The administration needs to make a strong decision about an LGBT group and about its foundational guiding principles.
The status of an LGBT group has been debated for over a decade on campus, but there has been no policy issued regarding this status. The University faces pressure from the Church of Christ community to deny the group University support because it could conflict with conservative Christian values. The academic community exerts its own pressure, through rankings and reports that criticize Pepperdine for its conservatism and threaten the University’s reputation if it does not move to a more liberal position.
An ambiguous position doesn’t help LGBT students either. Current students are caught in limbo, unsure of where the University draws a line on activities that may or may not violate policy. Gay prospective students cannot assess whether they will be satisfied with the level of freedom granted to them at Pepperdine.
Even the Graphic staff isn’t in total agreement as to what course of action to take, so we understand this is a difficult decision. But it’s not our decision to make. Pepperdine policy makers need to stop wading in ambiguity and form an actual policy that makes their position clear. The uncertainty damages the University’s reputation on both conservative and liberal sides. Trying to hold both positions isn’t true to either.
This discussion isn’t just about Reach OUT. Pepperdine is at a pivotal moment in deciding whether it will follow tradition or adapt to modern culture. The University was founded on the notion that faith is tied to academic excellence and that the two can and should coexist. It has retained the Church of Christ affiliation for 75 years, but religious groups have criticized Pepperdine for being too liberal for much of this history. One the other hand, secular academics often see Pepperdine as far too conservative and unwilling to adapt. Caught between the two, the University appears to be experiencing an identity crisis of sorts, trying to figure out how far the religious affiliation really goes. Does Pepperdine want to emulate Notre Dame, or do they want to look more like Wheaton? Our status as a “Christian university” is not in question. What that label entails is.
Sometimes the Christian heritage gets minimized in the presentation of information to prospective students. This might be done, presumably, to avoid alienating applicants who are not interested in a strongly religious school. Those who want a highly religious experience already know what they’re getting into. It is not unheard of for a freshman to say he had no idea Pepperdine was “so Christian” until he arrived for orientation. Additionally, some students and faculty joke about University morality-based rules, as if they exist only in writing and have no substance.
The goal has always been to integrate faith and learning and so distinguish Pepperdine from other institutions that choose one or the other. The administration’s interest in upholding the faith tradition is clear in the copious references to our mission statement and George Pepperdine’s vision for the school as an institution that would educate according to a Christian worldview. It also has an interest in achieving high status among the academic community, which benefits students and alumni by increasing the value of their degrees. So, is it possible to teach with faith in mind, yet allow students the ability to decide what that faith means for them in their personal lives?
The reality is Pepperdine may give up some prestige from the secular academic community if it adheres strictly to its faith tradition. But, if Pepperdine moves too far away from the faith tradition, it could lose respect in the Christian community. Which sacrifice are administrators willing to make? Which reputation is more important? In refraining from taking a strong stance either way, Pepperdine attempts to please both, but they please neither. It alienates and confuses both. Whatever they decide, they must realize that the Christian vision lends itself to an environment of love and respect for every student regardless. Ultimately, this is a question of integrity. They need to pick a side, be transparent about the decision and stick to it.