Jonathan S. Coley, Gay on God’s Campus: Mobilizing for LGBT Equality at Christian Colleges and Universities

Abstract

American Religion 1, no. 2 (Spring 2020), pp. 130–132 Copyright © 2020, The Trustees of Indiana University • doi: 10.2979/amerreli.1.2.14 Book Review Jonathan S. Coley, Gay on God’s Campus: Mobilizing for LGBT Equality at Christian Colleges and Universities (Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press, 2018). John Schmalzbauer Missouri State University, Springfield, USA A fascinating study of student activism, Jonathan Coley’s Gay on God’s Campus breaks new ground in the field of religion and higher education. Previous scholarship on religious colleges and universities has focused on secularization (think Harvard and Yale), student religious life (think Notre Dame), and conservative politics (think Liberty University). Ignoring these topics, Gay on God’s Campus portrays Christian college campuses as an unlikely staging ground for LGBT activism, making a valuable contribution to both the sociology of American religion and the literature on social movements. Coley’s study appears at a time when LGBT activism is surging in religious institutions. According to the 2017 American Freshman Survey, almost 8 percent of freshmen at religiously-affiliated institutions identify as LGBT. In Gay on God’s Campus, Coley notes that about 45 percent of America’s Christian colleges and universities had recognized LGBT groups in 2013, while 55 percent included sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination statements (35). Though sexual orientation and gender identity remain a source of conflict within Christian higher education, there is very little scholarship on this topic. John Schmalzbauer 131 Given the historic barriers to LGBT inclusion, what explains the presence or absence of such organizations in Christian colleges and universities? Analyzing a database of 682 schools, Coley reports that the theological orientation of the school is the best predictor of recognized groups. Institutions affiliated with communitarian denominations (emphasizing social justice) are more likely to host LGBT student organizations than institutions sponsored by individualistic denominations (emphasizing personal morality). After considering the broader landscape of Christian higher education, Gay on God’s Campus zeroes in on four institutions (Belmont University, Catholic University of America, Goshen College, and Loyola University in Chicago), exploring why students join and commit to LGBT-friendly groups. Drawing on interviews with current and former activists, Coley uncovers multiple pathways to LGBT organizing, rather than a single trajectory. Less than onethird of respondents came to LGBT groups with a history of political activism (45), while two-thirds did not. In place of politics, they cited religious motivations and their own LGBT identities as key factors in fueling their public engagement. Calling for an “inclusive understanding of activism” (11), Coley shows how political, religious, and social identities shape campus involvement, channeling students into three different kinds of groups. Not surprisingly, politically-motivated students join groups that emphasize direct action. By contrast, religiouslymotivated students emphasize education, sponsoring panel discussions and lecture series. Lastly, students motivated primarily by sexual orientation and gender identity are more likely to join groups that function as safe spaces. What impact do LGBT student activists have on Christian higher education ? Though LGBT groups struggle to be heard at many institutions, they are thriving on all four of the campuses profiled by Coley. Such groups have been instrumental in changing university policies and providing a place for LGBT students. While constrained by institutional culture, campus activists have made a difference. Like sociological scholarship on the African-American civil rights movement, Gay on God’s Campus shows the capacity of student networks and organizations to foster social change. It also adds to our understanding of social movements by emphasizing the diverse motivations of student activists. While previous scholarship has stressed the primacy of political socialization, Coley argues that “scholars should take into account the multiple ways one can be an activist (7). Coley’s most intriguing analysis contrasts the more confrontational tactics of direct-action groups with the bridge-building rhetoric of educational organizations . While the former foster institutional change, they alienate some LGBT students, who describe their tactics (which are widely used in non-religious American Religion 1:2 132 institutions) as “caustic” and “weird” (79). For these more apolitical students, religious dialogue and peer ministry are preferable strategies. A fine work of social movements scholarship, Gay on God’s Campus would have been...