queer

News hooks? Gender, sexual orientation and religion among American college students

News hooks? Gender, sexual orientation and religion among American college students

I know people will be surprised to hear this, but it’s rare for me to get my hands on some new data. I basically use two or three surveys for everything you see on this Substack and my social media.

But last week was a very good one because I got data that is a bit different, but very interesting, and quite newsworthy.

It comes from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), which is an organization that fights for the ability of individuals (students and faculty) to be able to freely exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. If someone on a college campus is punished for nothing more than their speech, FIRE often steps in and sues the university. You can read several examples of this on their Wikipedia page.

One of the major research projects that FIRE undertakes is an annual survey of college students to gauge how they think about the issue of free speech and if they feel like they have to stifle their speech because of hostility on campus. Often, this includes speech connected to religious beliefs.

This is a real treasure trove of data about how the next generation thinks about all kinds of topics. Their full report of their results (which runs to 85 pages) is here. The survey that they collected contains a total sample size of 55,102 respondents who had to be currently enrolled at an institution of higher learning in the United States. A thorough description of the methodology used is here and here.

I am making one adjustment to this data — I restricted my sample to just those who are between the ages of 18 and 25 years old. While I do think the views of 40-year-old graduate students are important, I wanted to just focus on college aged folks for this bit of data analysis. That means my sample is a bit smaller — 39,178. That’s still more than enough to analyze, though.

I am going to write a series of posts with this data, especially topics related to free speech and allowing speakers on campus that generate controversy, but I gleaned so much from just the demographic variables that I had to write about them specifically.

The theme here is simply three variables: sexual orientation, gender identity and religion among college-aged folks.

What really kicked this off was a report from Brown University that indicated that 38% of their student body identifies as homosexual, bisexual, queer, asexual, pansexual, questioning or other. When that same poll was conducted ten years earlier, that share was just 14%. Is Brown an outlier here? Or are huge percentages of college students not straight and/or not cisgender? Are these issues linked to religious beliefs, or the lack thereof?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Kansas City Star shows a curious lack of curiosity about pro-LGBTQ Christian school's closing

Kansas City Star shows a curious lack of curiosity about pro-LGBTQ Christian school's closing

All together now: Who. What. When. Where. Why. How.

Once upon a time, journalists were really curious people when it came to seeking basic, on-the-record answers to factual questions linked to the stories they were covering. That old “W5H” equation didn’t cover all the bases, of course, but it wasn’t a bad place to start.

When covering stories about a religious group, it really helps to know the specific religious tradition or larger organization (think “denomination”) to which it is linked. If it’s an ecumenical or interfaith group, that may require seeking the ties that band various groups of people who are involved in this project.

This brings us to a recent Kansas City Star report that ran with this headline: “KC Christian school lost donations after supporting LGBTQ rights. Now it’s closing.”

By definition, a “Christian school” is a religious organization. I have never heard of one that did not have ties of some kind — financial, theological, cultural or historical — to a specific religious tradition or to a group of churches that helped it get started. Think of this as the “Who” and “Why” factors.

Yes, in this nondenominational age a school may, in fact, have links to a number of congregations or religious networks. But that doesn’t mean there are no, to quote that old Gospel hymn, "ties that bind.” A nondenominational school will still have specific flocks of believersthat provide students, donations, training and other kinds of practical support.

The Urban Christian Academy certainly fits the nondenominational mold, or lack of a mold. Check out its online “manifesto” about it’s spiritual and intellectual commitments. However, that doesn’t mean that its leaders have zero practical or even personal links to institutional churches or other schools.

There was plenty of room to address questions of this kind in this 1,500-word feature. Was there a reason that the Kansas City Star included next to zero information about the institutional DNA of this urban school? I find the newsroom’s lack of curiosity to be be rather curious. Let’s look at a few pieces of this report and look for clues as to what is going on, starting with the overture:

In its nine years of existence, Urban Christian Academy steadily grew, adding a new grade each year in a neglected southeast Kansas City neighborhood.

The school has provided its students, kindergarten through eighth grade, with a tuition-free private education. And with its “inclusive theology,” it always supported LGBTQ students and staff. But it did so quietly, as issues like same-sex marriage and gay clergy divided Protestant denominations while hate crimes and violence against the LGBTQ community rose.

OK, this is a story about theological, doctrinal divisions inside “Protestant denominations.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Keeping up with the times: If schools nix 'Mom and Dad,' is mainstream journalism next?

Keeping up with the times: If schools nix 'Mom and Dad,' is mainstream journalism next?

Reporters and editors want to be sensitive to personal and minority-group concerns alongside their professional duty to be clear, accurate and non-partisan.

How to handle this balancing act amid the West's fast-evolving verbiage to accommodate feminist or LGBTQ+ advocates? The media need to consider that proposed prohibitions now go well beyond replacement of "binary" pronouns with the singular usage of they-them-their (which breaks strict grammar in English and creates ambiguity on antecedents).

Grace Church School in lower Manhattan (sticker price $57,330 per year) provides a revealing rundown on new expectations for usage and diction in its "Inclusive Language Guide," enacted last September. It says e.g. that instead of "boys and girls," school personnel should now say "people, folks, friends," or specifics like "readers" or "mathematicians." Similarly, "husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend" give way to "spouse / partner / significant other." The Grace community is asked to say "grown-ups, folks or family" and shun the formerly acceptable "parents" or "Mom and Dad."

Some Moms and Dads were apparently upset upon learning about the guide when posted online in January. School leaders defended their new "inclusive" regimen but hastened to explain that wordings are "suggested," not "mandatory," and apply to the adult faculty and staff, not students.

The 12-page Grace guide, posted here under "Antiracism Resources" at is by no means unique in concept. It draws from such resources as the 2018 "language values" policy at New York City's Bank Street College of Education, which media policy-makers need to be monitoring.

The key disputes involve LGBTQ+ expectations and especially regarding gender identity and fluidity. Grace opposes "heteronormativity," that is, "the assumption that cisgender is the 'norm' or standard and transgender is the outlier or an abnormality." (Editors should ponder the "cisgender" neologism for labeling persons whose gender identity or gender expression matches their biology.)

"Language is constantly evolving," Grace correctly states, and the longstanding term "homosexual" should be eliminated. "More appropriate" designations include "queer,” formerly a derogatory equivalent of the N-word — but now rehabilitated as individuals' deliberate "political identification."


Please respect our Commenting Policy