Voices from the Queer Underground

Contributed by Charles B. Bratton II

On September 26, the Harvard Undergraduate Queer Interfaith Community hosted a panel seminar titled “On God’s Campus: Voices from the Queer Underground,” with the advertised purpose of exploring “how religious exemptions harm queer students…and how to fight them.” Hosted in the basement of Memorial Church, the panel featured three self-identifying Christians: Erin Green, the director of the Religious Exemptions Accountability Project (REAP); Crystal Cheatham, REAP's associate director and founder of the progressive, LGBTQ+ friendly Our Bible app; and SueAnn Shiah, a soon-to-be ordained PCUSA minister.

While the event was hosted by and designed for Harvard students, the panelists’ main target was America’s remaining Christian colleges. Speakers began by condemning the traditional, faith-based practices of Christian colleges, such as Liberty University, and requirements like signed statements of faith, mandatory worship service attendance, and enrollment in theology classes—all of which embody ideals not reflective of modern-day progressivism. Such requirements are standard at religious institutions, but the panelists found it unfair that students receiving a religious education must, through these practices, adhere to their chosen institution’s doctrine.

Erin Green and Crystal Cheatham—the latter proudly sported a “Bad Theology Kills” t-shirt—presented REAP’s work as the solution. Tied to the law firm Perkins Coie, REAP is a program dedicated to “shining a light on the dangers and abuses of a major educational pipeline of white Christian Supremacy” by legally challenging religious exemptions to civil rights laws. The project’s goal, according to panelists, is not just advocacy but holding religious institutions accountable. Panelists highlighted REAP’s 2021 class-action lawsuit in Elizabeth Hunter, et al. v. U.S. Department of Education, in which they sued the government for supporting colleges that adhere to traditional views on sexuality. 

Ultimately, REAP lost that case in court on account of the Constitutional right to religious freedom, and all attempts to appeal were denied. Nonetheless, REAP remains undeterred in its commitment to fight for “the safety, bodily autonomy, justice, and human rights of LGBTQIA+ and other communities marginalized at many predominantly white, taxpayer-funded religious schools and colleges.” 

Another essential element of REAP’s work is storytelling. Throughout the presentation, various student stories were highlighted: one transgender student faced expulsion from a university, and another reported poor mental health and decreased academic performance because he felt forced to hide his identity. The stories were poignant and, at times, emotional. While it seems natural that students will face consequences if they choose to attend a college that does not endorse their conduct, the panelists argued that many LGBTQ+ students attend religious colleges anyway because they are drawn to the strong community, academic rigor, and intense spiritual formation. Sometimes, students may not identify as LGBTQ+ until after they enroll, or they may be compelled to attend by family members. Left undiscussed is what spiritual formation may entail, and the fundamental question of whether or not religious universities can have rules based on their beliefs.  

At the end of the two-hour seminar, the audience was invited to participate in an "advantage/disadvantage" exercise. Attendees sat in a circle and were instructed to adjust their scores based on their upbringing, answering questions like whether they were taught that sex outside of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage is wrong. The exercise was designed to highlight grievances against traditional teachings; at the end of the exercise, the panelists had the lowest scores.

This concluding exercise elucidated the sentiment underpinning the night: panelists seemed less interested in examining faith traditions, or at least attempting to harmonize them with modern ideas, and more interested in replacing religions’ central tenets. To them, “God’s campus” should be defined by the expressive individual, not by God; it is religion without duty and faith without salvatory transformation. Orthodoxy is rejected in favor of personal desire.

The emotional struggles in the stories of REAP’s plaintiffs were evident. Students wrote about the pain of choosing between their faith and what they thought was their identity. Some lost relationships because of their choices and beliefs. Yet, for all of the talk about internal dissonance, there was little discussion about the choice being forced upon colleges: conform to modern dogma or face sanctions. Students, not wanting to denounce their sexual preferences, have decided that it is better to force private institutions to denounce their religious tenets. An individual’s sexual preferences, under this view, are fundamentally more important than any institutional belief, value, or law.  

Although this seminar was hosted at Harvard, a school built by Puritans but now detached from its religious roots, this does not bode well for the few remaining religious institutions in America. Not content with Harvard turning secular, progressives seek to do the same to every other college, using the Ivy League and its ideas as a launching point. I was raised in a traditional Evangelical community that sends its youth to Christian colleges. If REAP has its way, these remaining enclaves for those with traditional beliefs will be eradicated. Harvard may have strayed from its Christian principles long ago, but now, the goal is to ensure every other university does the same.