With LGBTQ Community Facing Adversity, Sophomore Duo Breaks the Silence
When Scott Chessare (COL ’10) came to Georgetown as a freshman, things on campus looked a lot different.
As a gay student, Chessare arrived on the Hilltop at a time when administrators were hesitant to engage with the LGBTQ community and GU Pride was comprised of only a few students who would meet sporadically.
That all changed after an alleged hate crime against a homosexual student in September sparked a backlash of campus-wide protest and inspired student groups to rally together for change in the university’s policy toward the LGBTQ community.
In response, Chessare, along with GU Pride Co-President Olivia Chitayat (COL ’10), sought to bring together students with different interests and different ideas around broader questions of campus diversity.
Chitayat said that Pride focused on establishing more allies and fostering dialogue with numerous campus groups.
Under the pair’s leadership, Pride began tabling in Red Square in October, attempting to gather signatures for a petition supporting reforms, including changes to university procedure for addressing hate crimes, expansion of resources for the LGBTQ community and improved education for students in issues related to bias and diversity.
A week and a half later, they had 1,500 signatures and had enlisted a wide base of support. The group held rallies in Red Square in support of its cause, and protestors wearing yellow T-shirts emblazoned with the words “I am” marched to Healy Hall to present University President John J. DeGioia with the petition.
When late one October night another student was shoved against Healy Hall while being called homophobic slurs, the movement gained momentum, and a group of professors voiced their concerns by issuing an open letter to Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson and DeGioia.
By the end of the month, DeGioia announced reforms that would better integrate the LGBTQ community into campus, a move that drew ire from conservative critics.
Chessare said that Chitayat brought a determination to make pride more inclusive and open to the greater community, which contributed to the successful campaign.
“What we found is that Olivia is extremely outgoing and really good at networking. … I was good at planning and working internally,” he said. “We ended up complementing each other really well.”
Both Chessare and Chitayat agree that Pride has changed dramatically in the past year from a group of roughly 15 dedicated members to an organization that garnered national attention.
Within a month, the group had far exceeded its initial goal to improve the already existing but stalled LGBTQ working group, with DeGioia’s announcement of the creation of three new working groups. One was charged with addressing issues of reporting relevant safety issues such as bias incidents and hate crimes, after criticism that the university waited too long to inform students of the alleged Sept. 9 attack that sent the victim to the hospital. The second focused on adding new resources for LGBTQ students, and the third was charged with examining new co-curricular educational initiatives. In February, DeGioia announced that Georgetown will create an LGBTQ resource center, which is set to open in the fall.
“We felt that the administration didn’t want to have a dialogue with us,” Chessare said. “But it’s not really constructive at this point to think about why they were initially unresponsive. There’s been a huge amount of involvement from the administration, and everyone from DeGioia on down has demonstrated their strong support for us.”
Chessare said that although GU Pride felt that it had a lot of internal support within the administration before last semester, it took the publicizing of the two hate crimes and DeGioia’s speech to bring it out.
The real push for reforms, Chessare said, came mostly from a large coalition of students and faculty frustrated with the administration’s initial response to the incidents.
“It was really an organic movement from the students,” he said. “We just happened to be presidents at the time.”
Chitayat saw her role this year as working together with Chessare to channel the energy of the movement. “It was a broader Pride effort,” she said. “We worked really well to facilitate that broader effort.”
Thirty-eight members of the Georgetown community participated in the working groups, including students, faculty, staff, alumni and Jesuit representatives.
In February, the three groups presented their final reports to DeGioia and University Provost James J. O’Donnell.
Perhaps the most notable reform that came out of the working groups’ recommendations was the development of the resource center.
“My general feeling is one of being really excited for Georgetown,” said Chessare, who, with Chitayat, was a member of the working group on resources. “With the resource center, we can take the next step in making a better, more accepting campus.”
The new resource center will also be focused on incorporating a variety of campus groups.
“I strongly feel that the most important role of the new resource center is for it to convey to the entire Georgetown community that though it may be an LGBTQ resource center, it really is there to provide everyone with its services,” Palacios said. He said that this includes everyone “from LGBTQ identified individuals, to allies, and to those who may still have mixed feelings about having an LGBTQ resource center at a Catholic university.”
The committee charged with selecting the staff for the resource center has yet to make a decision on who its first director will be. Ricardo Ortiz, associate professor of English and co-chair of the group on resources, said that while the staffing process is going “smoothly,” it is still incomplete. The initial proposal for the resource center recommended that the director begin work on July 1 or at some point in the summer.
Chessare, who, with Chitayat, has been involved in the selection process for the director, said that finalists for the position will be brought to campus next week. Chessare said he is confident that everything will be in place by the beginning of the fall semester.
For the working group on education, the greatest success has come from incorporating as many campus groups as possible into the reform efforts. “The best part has been getting so many people to say yes,” said Rosemary Kilkenny, vice president for institutional diversity and equity and co-chair of the group. She added that she and her colleagues had been meeting with “just about every group on campus,” including admissions, Blue and Gray, Athletics, Residence Life, Health Education and the Office of International Programs.
The recommendations from the working group on reporting, co-chaired by Tommaso Astarita, professor of history, and Dennis Williams, director of the Center for Multicultural Equity Access and associate dean of students, focused on “streamlining” the reporting of incidents of bias and discrimination.
Additionally, in response to the concerns over delays in reporting incidents of bias, the group recommended that any postponement in notification lasting more than two to three days after the event be accompanied by a note explicitly detailing the reasons for the delay.
Looking back, Chessare said he sees a different environment on campus.
“I feel more comfortable than I did a year ago,” he said. “There is more awareness on campus.”
Carlos Palacios (COL ’09), who was a member of the working group on resources, said he has also seen a powerful change take place.
“I was really annoyed and angered that Georgetown had done such a wonderful job at promoting itself when I was deciding which school to attend, and then when I got [here], it all seemed like a lie,” he said. “When I got to Georgetown as a freshman, I was extremely cautious and constantly worried about revealing a certain identity of mine. Now, when I walk around campus, I don’t feel so paranoid and fearful. This whole initiative has helped create a sense of peace and comfort within me.”
In addition to students, professors have also seen a change in the university’s responsiveness. “The university has improved slowly over recent years in its programmatic, institutional responsiveness to the general concerns that many of us have had about issues of bias and diversity in our community,” Ortiz said, “Many of us hope that this year’s events will prove a watershed moment in that process.”
While Chessare has stepped down from his role as co-president this semester and is now the advocacy chair for Pride, working on transgender inclusiveness at Georgetown. Chitayat remains in charge of the club along with Jack Harrison (SFS ’09).
Although Georgetown has come under fire for planning an LGBTQ resource center, which is seen by some as contrary to its mission as a Catholic university, Chessare said that the two identities should be compatible. Chessare said that the resource center should not be a place of conflict for Georgetown’s Catholic identity, but rather one that complements it.
“I want a resource center where issues of religion and spiritually are just as important as sexuality and gender identity issues,” he said. “I think there’s a tendency for any LGBTQ issue to check religion at the door. That’s not helpful.”
Despite outside criticism from conservative Catholic groups calling the center contrary to Catholic teaching, Chessare, who says he is a practicing Catholic, said that Georgetown’s step of supporting the LGBTQ community has reflected a commitment to its Catholic mission.
“The university is now much more willing to say, ‘We’re a Jesuit university, and that’s why we need this,’” he said. “This is the first time my gay and Catholic identity make sense together.”
Latest Issue
Notre Dame, often proffered as THE conservative Catholic university, never straying from Catholic teachings, has an LGBQ resource center. Their website explains the specific teachings of the Church which do not condemn homosexuals. Rather, they say, homosexuals are God's children and called to a life of celibacy.
I am not conservative though I am Catholic, but I find it interesting that a school like Notre Dame- which doesn't even serve meat on Fridays during Lent- has had this center in place for years now, but Georgetown- widely recognized as the more tolerant, liberal Catholic university- is so heavily criticized. This LGBTQ center has been necessary for a long time, and kudos to Georgetown for finally realized that.
My objection to farcical things like this isn't on religious grounds, despite my Catholicism. I'm well aware of the nuanced position which the Church takes on homosexuals - and it is a nuanced position.
In my honest opinion, this is a strawman - this 'opponents are arguing on religious grounds' hogwash. I think that this is an afront to some very fundamental areligious concepts - equality being the foremost among them.
Why should particular groups, defined along the lines of their sexual proclivities, receive insitutional funds for a 'resource center'. What justifies this?
Now, practically, I can answer that: it's some good old fashioned (nauseating) interest group politics in play - a vocal minority community demanding the resources of treasury which owes its allegiance to a far larger and more diverse constituency - the University mission, presently manifested in the contemporary student body at large.
But normatively - morally, logically, rationally, philosophically - there is no justification for this nonsense. I have no problem with people having non-heteronormative sexual orientations. Good for you. Enjoy yourself. I do have a problem when those people divert the funds of a MUCH larger community toward parochial projects having no substantial justification, little due dilligence attached, and less transparency than a bucket of oil.
Ultimately, the ironic reality of it all: crap like this does more to harm than to help the LGBTQ community. These pushes for 'resource centers' and 'march nights' etc. are, in fact, acts of self-ghettoization. Not acts of empowerment. This isn't 1972 - it's 2008. Stop pigeon-holing 18-22 year-olds into this mindest that 'my sexuality is the most prominent portion of my identity'. Welcome to the 21st century: you're here. You're queer. No one cares. Get to class.
Besides which, to be a fiscal grinch: stop spending major funds on projects that aren't for all of us. I will defend your right to your sexual preference to my last breath. But don't infringe on my right to have a university which treats all groups as equal, with equal access to appropriate resources and attention.
(Note, I will also accept a heterosexual resource center. Is this segregation? Perhaps. But imagine the possiblities ...)
Saxa
Our tuition money should not fund a LGBTQ resource center. Homosexuals should pay for it themselves if they want such a center.
I pretty much agree w/ Saxa dead on, and I'm not even a Catholic. How about this money get spent preventing girls from getting sexually assaulted in their campus housing, rather than go to a resource center for a group that can attain ANY resources it needs from the same places that heterosexual students can.
What resources will this money go towards that cannot already be attained elsewhere? And if it can't be attained elsewhere, WHY NOT? All students should have the resources they need, but why segregate specific funds so needlessly?
Re: "Welcome to the 21st century: you're here. You're queer. No one cares. Get to class."
You know, your argument would have a lot more force if this were actually true. People do care and there is a problem with homophobia on campus. Last fall was some pretty brutal evidence of that. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.
So what is the Resource Center EXACTLY GOING TO DO that will prevent bigoted, ignorant, hateful students from committing acts of violence? I agree that some people are un-accepting of a lifestyle that personally doesn't bother me one bit. I just don't understand what THIS solution is doing about it. Why aren't the resources on campus already equipped to handle these sorts of things? If I have a heterosexual crisis where I am concerned about who I am in some fundamental way or am struggling with breaking news to someone, isn't there a place for me to go? So why isn't that enough to augment and apply to homosexual students? As far as safety, everyone should be safe. Again, what is specifically being done here for homosexual students, and why is it being so narrowly tailored?
"If I have a heterosexual crisis where I am concerned about who I am in some fundamental way or am struggling with breaking news to someone, isn't there a place for me to go?"
I assume that a "heterosexual crisis" that deals with who you are "in some fundamental way" would probably be covered by the Q part of LGTBQ: "questioning."
Right, I understand where it would fit under the LGBTQ framework. But couldn't counselors that currently assist heterosexual AND homosexual students address these kinds of issues? What is the need to hire more staff and put more resources into divergent places rather than improve and adapt the existing resources so they could do more for everyone on campus?
This resource center is simply a result of pressure from a vocal minority. As always, Georgetown caves in to the politically correct cause of the day. Call the school racist--establish a center for oppressed minorities. Call the school sexist--establish a center for feminists. Call the school homophobic--establish a center for gays and lesbians. Georgetown caves in to the political Left every single damn time. A number of alumni are sick and tired of funds going to identity politics group while the Catholic identity of the school is abandoned. This resource center will only be another example of politically correct Georgetown caving in to whatever oppressed group raises its voice. How about a center for conservative, straight, white men?
"a center for straight, white men?" That's what the whole country has been ever since a bunch of straight white (rich) men decided to declare independence from a bunch of straight white men in England. Straight white men don't have to worry about holding hands with a girl or expressing simple affection at a party with a girl. LGBTQ students, on the other hand, have in fact been violently beaten on the basis that someone appeared to be gay.
No one is "calling the school homophobic." What is clear, though, is that there was a history of neglecting to report on and respond to hate crimes that were clearly directed against LGBTQ students. That's what happened again, twice, in the fall semester. The university would tell you if someone's laptop got stolen within "about 12 hours, but they wouldn't tell us a violent crime had been committed until the news media broke the story three weeks later.
Furthermore, there already is a part-time director of LGBTQ resources. This new center will employ two full-time staff. That's not that huge of a change. We have already held a pilot program in a freshman dorm this semester where a number of homophobic statements were written on someone's door to intimidate them. We provided some of our own personal experiences as LGBTQ students in order to raise awareness of the fact that we do, in fact, exist and that we have a right not to live in fear at our own school, where we pay lots of money to attend. Call that part of an agenda if you want, but it seems overwhelmingly reasonable to me.
Moreover, we are making an active effort to incorporate issues of religion and spirituality into this center. Just read the article. There's nothing that says you cannot be gay and Catholic.
"A vocal minority?"
Are you talking about how a third of the student body signed a petition in support of these goals within a couple weeks of hearing about the hate crime? Are you talking about how the student body government is fully behind us?
Why don't you get your facts "straight" first before boring us with your obsolete arguments.
If gays want a resource center, than they should pay for it themselves. Our tuition money should not be directed to helping a small percentage of the student population who live an immoral lifestyle. Oh and 1/3 is still a minority genius.
Nothing more than a shakedown by elements of the radical gay agenda. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be proud--the gay activists at Georgetown have taken a page from their book. Bitch and moan, raise false concerns in a liberal media and extort the school to advocate the Left-wing agenda of the homosexual movement. The Left always gets what it wants in Academia.
Doesn’t anyone see a problem with making Scott Chessare and Olivia Chitayat the cause celebres of the year less than a week after Philip Cooney was cleared, both legally and internally at the university, of the crime which was the entire cornerstone of their campaign? GU Pride has credited the September hate crime (which was actually a simple assault, a misdemeanor), being perpetrated on a Georgetown student by a Georgetown student, as providing the impetus for their whole campaign. Celebrating their triumph is yet another slap in the face to Philip Cooney, who was falsely accused of that crime. Those who contend, as written in some blogs, that homophobia on campus is still the greater issue, are wrong. There is no greater issue than someone being arrested on a phony i.d., with the powers that be – the media, the police department, and the university all being complicit -
on behalf of a cause. Whether the resource center belongs on campus or not, GU Pride’s number one bargaining chip has been based on worst case – a lie; best case, a very unfortunate mistake. The person of the year is Philip Cooney, who endured vicious, hateful attacks against his character for a crime he didn’t commit, and who did so with a temperance and fortitude few could match.
Hmm, against a homosexual, that makes sense to be honest. I mean, he had a serious reason, not like other people who kill just for fun! At least google nemesis doesn't kill anything and help you, try it.
Post new comment