Before accepting a faculty position at Auburn University (AU), I spoke with two lesbian employees at Auburn to find out what the institutional climate was like for its gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees. The picture they painted was bleak. They explained that openly gay people don't stay here--that they move to more hospitable universities within a couple of years. Indeed, they were both gone by the time I arrived in the fall. Their considerable professional talents had been forever lost to Auburn, not because of problems like non-competitive salaries & benefits, but because Auburn University chooses to maintain an unfriendly environment for its gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees.

So what is it about the AU climate that is so inhospitable? I arrived in the midst of the AGLA controversy. The fact that some undergraduate students were bigoted enough to deny the gay and lesbian student group its charter did not concern me nearly as much as the fact that the university administration chose not to overrule that decision until the last possible day before the ACLU was scheduled to file suit. The timing of that decision sent a chilling message: however it may have been intended, the message was received by the gay community to mean, "we didn't want to defend the rights of our gay and lesbian students, but those pesky ACLU lawyers made us." The fact that those lawyers had the power to make the administration comply indicates how far behind the times Auburn was at that time. The ACLU had already filed and won a half a dozen similar suits around the country. Rather than looking to that pattern and embracing the future, the Auburn administration of that day chose to drag its feet.

Turning to the present, there are at least three important changes that could be made to improve the current climate which would involve no additional outlay of University funds. These areas are the University non-discrimination policy, the University harassment policy, and Auburn's definition of "family."

There are several indicators that tell gay, lesbian, and bisexual prospective students and employees what they can expect from the University. The most important of these is the institution's non-discrimination policy. It is this policy that defines which groups cannot be discriminated against and, by omission, indicates which groups can be discriminated against with impunity. It is of particular importance that sexual orientation be included in such policies: no federal law protects gay and lesbian people from employment discrimination, and only eight states provide such protection (Zuckerman & Simons, 1996). Sexual orientation is conspicuously absent from Auburn's non-discrimination policy.

A recent list (obtained from the Internet) of American colleges and universities that have non-discrimination policies, which include sexual orientation, listed 285 institutions, 85 of which are state-run universities. North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are among the Southern states with public universities that prohibit discrimination against their gay and lesbian students and employees. No state university in Alabama has yet taken this important step, yet the need is great. One of my friends recently lost her job at Auburn, and I believe it was because her boss found out she is a lesbian. But since Auburn's non-discrimination policy does not protect her, there was no reason for her to report or appeal her dismissal. In that silence, Auburn can go on blithely assuming there is no problem.

Sexual orientation likewise is absent from the current AU harassment policy. In the spring of 1995, a committee, charged to examine the harassment policy, recommended that sexual orientation be added to the existing list of groups protected from harassment at Auburn. The University Senate voted to approve that recommendation. Yet nearly a year later, little ground has been covered in implementing policy. Meanwhile, when passersby scribble "fag" or "homo" on my office door, I am uncomfortably aware that if I do manage to catch the perpetrators that there is little I can do. I have heard (informally, from a second-hand source) that the current administration would "not tolerate" such harassment. But it is unclear what form that non-toleration would take, given that harassment based on sexual orientation is not prohibited here. And without a clear policy statement, most gay and lesbian students and employees would have no way of knowing that the administration would be sympathetic. Perhaps most importantly, the perpetrator never receives the message that this behavior is inappropriate. Saying quietly and unofficially that we support our gay employees does little if anything to change the campus climate. Only by clear and unambiguous policy statements can harassment and discrimination be prevented and remediated.

Auburn University's definition of family is a third issue which needs to be addressed. Currently Auburn's sick leave, emergency family leave, and funeral leave policies spell out who does and does not qualify as "family" in times of emergency. Last summer a friend of mine filed for family emergency leave when he needed to accompany his life partner for emergency medical tests involving a life-threatening health condition. The leave was denied because his family is not recognized at Auburn. While a straight colleague in identical circumstances could have used sick leave, my friend had to take annual leave. The Auburn Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Caucus has been pushing the administration for a re-examination of Auburn's definition of family ever since, with no success.

Nevertheless, I do see some progress. When President Muse first came to Auburn, he wrote an editorial speaking eloquently for tolerance and respect for gay and lesbian members of the University community. Although the silence from that office since that editorial has been discouraging, I believe that if there were a general clamor for justice, such demands would at least find a sympathetic ear. The Auburn Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Caucus (which welcomes new members, regardless of sexual orientation) is healthy and active. The Caucus is beginning to call attention to some of these problems, and is also bringing educational events to campus. For example, a photo exhibit entitled "Love Makes a Family--Living in Lesbian and Gay Families" will be on display in Foy Union, room 246, from April 14 to 20; and Daniel Helminiak, best-selling author of What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality, will speak in Broun Auditorium April 18 at 7:00 p.m. The University Senate's (resounding) vote to endorse the addition of sexual orientation to the harassment policy is also encouraging, and currently there is informal discussion among University senators about how to get that recommendation off of individual desks and into formal policy. The addition to Auburn's Faculty Handbook of sexual orientation discrimination as one reason a tenure decision can be appealed is also a bright spot (although without an accompanying non-discrimination policy it is unclear what that clause means). The beginnings of progress are evident. The question is where we will go from here.

Auburn has a choice. Auburn can lead, or Auburn can wait and be dragged reluctantly into the future, bit by bit, battle by battle. Auburn can be counted among those institutions that light the way for others to follow. Or it can hang back, hiding behind fears and excuses, and wait for others to do that important work. Currently, I see a faculty trying to move ahead and light the way, and an administration reluctant to anger the trustees or the governor. On the other hand, we cannot as a community sit back and wait for the administration to do the right thing--to stick their necks out alone. The call for progress on these issues must come from the faculty, staff, and students. An administration perceived as reluctantly responding to a groundswell of pressure from a righteous university community is much more likely to be palatable to a conservative board of trustees than is an administration perceived to be stirring up trouble on its own.

There must be persistent demands for justice and equity for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and employees if change is to occur. And those demands must not come only from the gay community. There are a few of us who take the (considerable) risks involved in actively working to improve campus climate for ourselves and our colleagues. But most gay and lesbian employees do not dare work openly on these issues for fear of losing their jobs. Leadership on these issues must therefore come also from the heterosexual community. The civil rights movement was primarily driven by courageous African-Americans, who risked their lives and jobs for freedom. But that movement would not have enjoyed the success it did without the active support of white allies who worked for justice simply because it needed to happen. The civil rights of sexual minorities have yet to be won. Basic civil rights involving employment, freedom from harassment, and recognition of families are battles just now being waged. Jim Crow is dead, but his son is alive and well and oppressing your gay and lesbian colleagues and students.

Auburn stands at a crossroads. She must decide whether to take her place in the sun, a leader among Southern universities, or whether instead to balk and hang back, nervously watching, waiting to be dragged forward when, decades later, she is noticed, lurking in the shadows.

References

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. (1982). The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
Zuckerman, A. J., & Simons, G. F. (1996). Sexual Orientation in the Workplace: Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals & Heterosexuals Working Together. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.