With the same-sex marriage debate in Supreme Court looming large, the nation’s short attention span has turned an eye to gay rights — gay marriage in particular. With more U.S. senators and professional athletes coming out in support of gay marriage, it would seem the country is shifting toward a more relaxed and open stance on gay rights.
David Delgado/The Daily Cougar
And then there is Texas.
Chris Woolsey, Northside student senator for Texas A&M University, introduced SB65-70, a bill “requesting that students who object to funding the GLBT Resource Center through their student fees and tuition for religious reasons be allowed to opt out from funding (the GLBT Resource Center)” on March 20. If passed, this bill would amount to allowing institutional discrimination.
This comes as no surprise as Texas A&M was recently named one of the 12 least friendly campuses in the nation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals by the Huffington Post, along with the University of Dallas, a private Catholic university, and Southern Methodist University, a private Methodist university.
“While it can be argued that the GLBT Resource Center is a worthy use of funds in order to provide a welcoming environment for vulnerable populations at Texas A&M, it is reasonable for students to object to a use of their own money that is in direct opposition to their own religious values,” Wolley said in the bill.
Imagine instead it was a women’s resource center. It would be unthinkable to advocate defunding the women’s center for morally disagreeing with its actions. LGBT students are at a disadvantage on a campus such as Texas A&M because of the hostilities they face.
“The effects of this bill reach beyond our student organization of the GLBT Aggies. The resource center under attack is a separate Texas A&M University campus office,” said Kimberly Villa, GLBT Aggies president. “If this bill were to pass in the Senate, it would be used as the official student body opinion, which can be particularly dangerous when LGBT students and allies have made so much progress in connecting with other Aggies and changing a misconception about our university.”
The Texas A&M Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center uses its office on campus to facilitate conversations with LGBT students, allies, faculty and staff.
“The GLBT Resource Center serves a multitude of purposes that, if removed, would damage a great portion of our student body,” Villa said. “The GLBT Resource Center is not an organization being funded by student fees. The GLBT Resource Center is an office on campus like the Women’s Resource Center and others under the Office of Student Life. I urge individuals who support this bill to think more critically of what it actually means to the students it is directly affecting and less about what they may have heard.”
UH LGBT Program Director Lorraine Schroeder said that while the LGBT Resource Center is not student-funded, those who would favor a UH bill like the one at Texas A&M should do so for reasons other than religion.
“The LGBT Resource Center at UH is not funded by student fees,” Schroeder said. “If it were, our response would be that tuition and fees are spent according to what benefits students and contributes to their success, not according to one group’s religious beliefs.”
Schroeder said that the resource center does not aim to help just LGBT students, but students across the entire campus as well.
“We work with all students and collaborate with multiple departments that realize having a campus that is diverse and accepting of differences makes for a richer learning environment for all students,” Schroeder said.
James Lee, student senator-elect and president of the UH chapter of the Texas Freedom Network, said he was saddened by the news.
“It would be a great shame if the oldest GLBT Center in Texas’ history would no longer be able to remain open due to the conservative politics of TAMU’s Student Senate,” Lee said. “In my personal experience, the UH LGBT Resource Center was a place where I felt I could recover from the experiences I had faced while growing up in an unwelcoming environment, and it served its purpose.”
Woolsey did not reply for comment; however, the political landscape on the issue of gay rights is changing. This attempt to defund the center shines a bad spotlight on Texas A&M’s campus and may foreshadow what is to come in the state legislature.
Alex Caballero is a creative writing senior and may be reached at [email protected].
Is it not the case that the right of GLBT individuals to associate with who they want stem from the freedom of choice, to choose who we do and do not associate with? Should not this freedom of choice extend to ALL individuals? It would be one thing for TAMU to restrict all funds from GLBT amenities; but it is a completely different thing to allow individuals to choose where there money goes. Why, on one hand, would we protect the freedom of choice for some while, on the other hand, eliminate it? Is not one person’s freedom to choose directly tied to another’s? This all comes down to freedom of choice. Either we have it or we don’t. This is not institutional discrimination. Allowing students to choose where their money goes is the proliferation of choice; if you support GLBT individuals and their right to choose, then this is a no brainer. TAMU is not in the wrong here.
where their money goes*
some, while on the other hand, eliminate it for others* (man…typing this out on my phone sucks)
Yeah, which is why UH lets us opt out of things like the rec center, university center, and new stadium fees when we don’t feel like our money should go there.
Oh wait, but then we wouldn’t have nice things, because everyone would opt out. If you really want to take the stance of giving people the choice to choose which individual sectors of education their money goes towards, then you have to accept it in it’s entirety. You can’t allow people to cut their funding to one particular group while forcing them to continue to pay for other services that they disagree with.
In short, if you have some strong objection (moral, religious, or otherwise) to how the university spends it’s money, then go to another university.
I agree to your point that if you disagree with how a university uses your money, then you should go else where; the same could be said, I suppose, of GLBT students at TAMU. I do subscribe to the idea of allowing students where their money should go; perhaps then students would be more concerned with what resources they have toward their education as opposed to how many weights or rock gyms they have. Though, I’m a cynic, and I’d have to disagree with you insofar as students would more likely prefer seeing their money go to “nice things.”
of allowing students to decide where*
Oh this would be lovely. Possibly in court, then, my son could opt out paying for the student recreation center at TSU. Religious reasons would be a fine argument, although, I think usage is just as good a reason. Dittof or the football stadium.