They Stood Against the Wind

A small but determined group of Christian professors at Texas A&M University stood against the prevailing wind of political correctness- and won. In the spring of 1991, momentum surged from three professors to more than 80 faculty and 100 alumni involved in a bid to remove "sexual preference" phrasing from anti-discrimination policies at the university.

The outcry by concerned faculty and alumni helped produce a complete change in the wording of campus-wide anti-discrimination statements.

The proposed policies stated that faculty would not be discriminated against based on "race, sex, religion, age, national origin, occupationally unrelated or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual preference." Through the efforts of concerned professors, the wording now reads that the university will not tolerate "any form of illegal discrimination against any individual . . . inconsistent with the values and ideals of the university community."

Lack of Opposition

In October of 1990, Texas A&M adopted sexual orientation phrasing into anti-discrimination policies "regarding admission, employment, or access . . . to facilities." According to the October 28 Houston Chronicle of that year, gay and lesbian professors "expressed particular happiness at the lack of opposition," which was "much to their surprise."

Dr. L. Murphy Smith, professor of accounting, said it was the statement by the gay lobbyists that readied him for action.

"I thought, 'We really let the Lord down. We just sent a message that there are no professors at A&M who have any opposition to homosexuality.' " So Smith decided to be ready to act the next time the issue came up, and it did.

On December 3, 1990, the administration sent a memo to all faculty informing them of proposed changes to the tenure and promotion policy. Dr. Steve Crouse, associate professor of health and kinesiology, was literally poised to drop the memo in the wastebasket when he decided he should read it.

Dr. Steve Crouse, professor of health, was literally poised to dispose of the memo which proposed changes in anti-discrimination language. He decided to read it, and then contacted Smith.

Crouse saw the added phrase "sexual preference" and didn't believe there were any new laws that required such language in anti-discrimination statements.

"I called Murphy," Crouse said, ". . . and we felt like the momentum was against us and there was absolutely no hope of changing it. However, we felt the Lord wanted us to at least stand up [and voice our concerns].

"I think as Christians we need to stand up for what's right, and we need to stand up loud and clear. If we don't, who else will? There is absolutely no other group that can be the moral conscience of this country."

Smith said they had "decided victory would be measured by our taking a stand. We weren't going to measure the victory by getting the policy changed."

Dr. Murphy Smith, professor of accounting, solicited support for the cause among alumni and state leaders, as well as faculty on campus.

Immediately, Crouse and Smith wrote a petition highlighting four reasons to reject the new language: 1. Those who violate or encourage violation of state anti-sodomy laws should not be given special privileges; 2. Universities should not sanction sexual practices that are less than the moral and legal ideal of heterosexual relations within marriage; 3. As citizens, homosexuals already have the same legal rights that all individuals have under the law; 4. The term "sexual preference" is not clearly defined.

They also added to the petition, almost as an afterthought, a request to remove the sexual preference statement from all campus policies.

Crouse and Smith found their database of 160 names of faculty who participate in the periodic evangelistic advertisements on campus an invaluable asset in rallying supporters to their cause.

Within a week they collected enough signatures on petitions to voice their opposition at the first public hearing on the new policy. The next barrier to confront was the faculty senate, and for that Crouse called Dr. Carl Gabbard.

Into the Lion's Den

Crouse encouraged Gabbard, also a professor of health and kinesiology and a former faculty senate member, to oppose the new wording formally in the first senate hearing on the new tenure and promotion policy.

"That's where I went into the lion's den," said Gabbard.

Dr. Carl Gabbard, professor of health, stood alone in the faculty senate against the homosexual phrasing.

Gabbard stood in the senate and questioned the need to include "sexual preference," and he asked for someone to define the term.

"You can imagine how quiet it was getting in there," he said.

One gay supporter told Gabbard before the senate that the law required the sexual phrasing, and that the senate was not sanctioning the practice of homosexuality, only "the status."

"I thought I would have some support out there, and I think the only person was the Lord-He was there," said Gabbard. "I was hoping people would get up after me and speak in my favor, but no one did.

"Probably one of the lowest points I've had in my life was right after I finished that senate presentation. I've learned now that you never stand alone, no matter what it seems like."

Gabbard and the others didn't quit; they were only spurred on to research the homosexual agenda in earnest. Meanwhile, the petition gained momentum and requests began to pour in for more to hand out. Smith contacted people in the alumni association and word began to spread.

Even several state representatives called the school to lobby for the removal of the proposed wording.

"I even knew people who wrote the administration saying they would not send their children to A&M as intended if the wording remained in the policies," Crouse stated.

He added that from the beginning they did not expect to succeed in changing the policy. They intended the petition to be more a source of information-a watchdog type effort of informing faculty who might be concerned about the proposed changes in policy.

The participation of people from various fronts was important in dispelling the belief that opposition to the wording came from only a few people or a single fundamental group, according to Smith.

The Winds began to Shift

The winds began to shift in favor of the policy objectors. The professors discovered there were no laws requiring sexual preference language, the upper administration was unaware there was no requirement, and the gay lobby always informed the administration the requirement existed.

"When I found out that I was clearly being lied to, as well as the whole senate, . . . then I got mad," Gabbard stated.

Smith said the time and effort they invested in researching the issue and in promoting their cause was essential to their eventual success.

"If you're sitting in the stands at the Roman arena," Smith said, "you don't have to jump out of the stands and into the middle of the lions when you can try to be as prepared for that battle as you can before it comes."

When the men explained to the administration that it was obeying non- existent laws, administrators realized they were also setting the school up for more legal risk than was necessary; i.e. affirmative action.

It was with this realization, Crouse suggested, that the upper administration began to sympathize with the removal of gay phrasing in the school's anti-discrimination policies.

Yet, their arguments weren't enough to sway the senate, although they did gain a few more votes for opposition to the new language.

The situation quickly gained recognition as both sides were interviewed and covered by the local TV news and local paper, and larger papers such as the Houston Chronicle.

"If you decide to take a stand on this issue," Smith cautioned, ". . . it's going to be impossible to stay out of the public eye."

Three times the faculty senate voted overwhelmingly to leave "sexual preference" in the anti-discrimination statement. But opposition to the wording continued to mount.

After the last vote by the faculty senate, the university president made the final decision.

"He vetoed the faculty senate for one of the first times ever," Gabbard declared. The president erased the gay wording from all school policies.

"It certainly was a faith-building experience for us," Crouse remarked. "There was much prayer that went into this. That was a very important part of the victory.

"Planning is important in such efforts, but if planning is going to inhibit action, and you know you're standing for the truth, then you had better act, and act fast."

Smith said that even if such policies are already in effect on a campus, it's not too late to act.

"Most schools have some type of periodic review of all policies. That would be the appropriate time to lobby for the change of any policy. It seems to me that the new policy we have at A&M could be a role-model for any institution."

Gabbard suggests that Christian faculty "need to be involved at every level. Not everyone can stand up in the senate, but you can help in a watchdog effort, or hand out petitions.

"Either we tackle this issue now or we tackle it later-we can't avoid it. And it's hard enough now to keep young people morally on track."

Michael Neely, the CLM southern regional director, said Smith, Crouse, and Gabbard "are like Jonathan of the Bible who said to his armor- bearer, 'Come and let us cross over to the garrison . . . perhaps the Lord will work for us, for the Lord is not restrained to save by many or by few (1 Sam. 14:6).'

"It's a joy for me to minister with university faculty like these professors," Neely continued, "whose hearts are intent on trusting and serving our Lord."