Should UP Include Gender Identity in Its Non-Discrimination Policy?
The University of Portland (UP), a Catholic institution, faces an urgent need to address its non-discrimination policy to include gender identity, a cause passionately pursued by students and advocated through multiple campaigns over the years. This discussion resurfaces with compelling arguments presented by student Shane Ruyle, who critically examined the gaps and inconsistencies in UP’s approach toward LGBTQ+ inclusivity. Drawing attention to the university’s core values of justice and inclusion, Ruyle contends that the failure to recognize gender identity as a protected class demonstrates a glaring oversight that undermines the institution’s integral principles.
Ruyle’s commentary sheds light on the 2024 student government resolution that called for the inclusion of gender identity within UP’s non-discrimination policy. Despite the unanimous passage of this resolution, the university administration has yet to implement the change. The administration’s stance is predicated on the notion that Title IX protections are sufficient to safeguard trans and nonbinary students. Nonetheless, Ruyle strongly argues that Title IX, although inclusive of gender-based discrimination, does not explicitly cover gender identity in the way that a dedicated policy would, leaving significant gaps and potential for federal rollbacks to erode these protections. This persistence highlights a deeper issue within the institution’s commitment to inclusivity and support for its LGBTQ+ community members.
The Historical Context and Student Advocacy
The push for gender identity inclusion at UP is not a recent development but rather part of a broader, long-standing movement for comprehensive LGBTQ+ rights within the university. This advocacy gained momentum as early as 2013 with the “Redefining Purple Pride” movement, which successfully amended the non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation. This victory marked a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights on campus and set the stage for subsequent efforts to address remaining areas of exclusion, particularly concerning gender identity. Despite this progress, the administration’s reluctance to further amend the policy to specifically address gender identity signals a recurring pattern of resistance to fully embracing these changes.
Notably, Ruyle’s arguments emphasize that UP’s administration’s hesitation cannot be seen as a simple bureaucratic delay but rather a deliberate choice that results in continued discrimination against trans and nonbinary students. This deliberate exclusion, even after changes in state law recognizing gender identity as a distinct class, is seen as a failure to align with evolving legal and social standards. These insights underscore the critical need for UP to re-evaluate its policies to ensure they genuinely reflect its commitment to justice and inclusivity and to foster an environment where all students, irrespective of gender identity, can feel safe, respected, and supported.
Core Values and Institutional Responsibilities
While it is essential to acknowledge the strides UP has made in LGBTQ+ inclusivity, such as the inclusion of sexual orientation in its policies and the establishment of the Center for Gender and Sexuality, the omission of gender identity from the non-discrimination policy still represents a significant shortfall. Ruyle strongly believes that this exclusion sends a disheartening message about the university’s recognition and care for trans students. The essence of a non-discrimination policy is to safeguard all members of the community against prejudice and injustice, and the current policy fails to meet this fundamental standard by not encompassing gender identity explicitly.
Ruyle’s critique also includes a call for the administration to introspect and prioritize inclusive values over maintaining outdated, discriminatory traditions. This call to action is not just about policy change but about genuinely embodying the university’s Catholic identity, which Ruyle argues should be synonymous with compassion, justice, and the promotion of human dignity. By aligning its non-discrimination policy with state laws and broader social expectations, UP can demonstrate a tangible commitment to fostering an inclusive and equitable campus environment. This alignment is crucial for bridging the gap between stated values and actual practices and for ensuring that all students feel equally valued and protected.
Conclusion and Future Directions
The University of Portland (UP), a Catholic institution, urgently needs to revise its non-discrimination policy to include gender identity. Students have fervently campaigned for this change over the years. This issue recently gained renewed attention through compelling arguments made by student Shane Ruyle, who highlighted flaws in UP’s approach to LGBTQ+ inclusivity. Ruyle called attention to the university’s core values of justice and inclusion, arguing that neglecting to protect gender identity undermines these principles.
In 2024, a student government resolution unanimously called for the inclusion of gender identity in UP’s non-discrimination policy. However, the university administration has yet to enact this change, relying instead on Title IX protections. While Title IX does address gender-based discrimination, Ruyle argues it does not explicitly cover gender identity as a dedicated policy would. This leaves significant gaps and potential for federal rollbacks to weaken protections for trans and nonbinary students. Ruyle’s persistence underscores a deeper issue in the university’s commitment to inclusivity and support for its LGBTQ+ community members.
