By Elena Butterfield
There is a lot to be learned about TCU, archiving in general, and LGBTQ+ history by just looking at what the archives have. It is clear that queer people have always existed and created a space for themselves. Furthermore, we can see the history right here at a local level in Fort Worth and TCU. On the other hand, you see how persecution of queer people and identities happened and how small the response from TCU has been.
In April 1991, the front page of The Skiff had the headline “Administrators to discuss sessions on sexual orientation.” The title does not, however, explain what happened or how administrators were putting the bare minimum into reacting to it. To start, I want to keep in mind the cultural context that this story is coming from because the way certain people spoke about it makes it seem like an isolated incident when it is actually a part of a wider story of persecution that LGBTQ+ people have faced. Homophobia was running rampant through American society and academia in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Gay people were being ostracized and faced discrimination at shocking rates.
This story starts with Brad Vanderbilt – an openly gay man who published an article in The Skiff about gay rights in October. After this, Vanderbilt was repeatedly threatened with physical violence- even receiving death threats- and during spring break, there was a homophobic slur painted on his bathroom door. The article opens by saying that “he thinks other students want him dead.” He was being terrorized, followed, getting threatening phone calls, and even faced this right outside his dorm. TCU had become increasingly unsafe for Vanderbilt, so he let administration know what was happening. Afterall, isn’t that what students are told to do to get help? The response from administration was to give staff training about sexual orientation, and they put the matter on the bottom of the docket for the April meeting, which they didn’t get to.
What TCU refused to do was label gay and lesbian students as a protected class. Labeling a group as a protected class provides legal protection for a social group that is facing discrimination. This is so important because it cements into the law that systemic discrimination exists. Protected status had only been around for less than 30 years at this time, and the United States government had not yet given protection based on sexual orientation. According to Margaret Barr, the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs in 1991, it was not necessary for TCU either. Barr claimed that it was not necessary because harassment in general was prohibited and sexual orientation was not a factor in “admission, hiring, or promotion.” What this explanation implies is that homophobia was not a problem at TCU, and Vanderbilt was potentially the only one being harassed. Furthermore, harassment doesn’t seem like a strong enough term to describe a student being chased by a group of men with baseball bats because he had the audacity to be gay and think he deserves equal rights. The issue was so minor to the TCU administration that it did not make their April meeting.
The Skiff article shows the duality of the TCU community. To start, we know that TCU’s newspaper was running articles by gay people in support of equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community in 1990. However, we can also see how steep the hill was to climb for equal rights. Since then, the LGBTQ+ community has been deemed a protected class on federal level. Discrimination based on sexual orientation was prohibited in 1998, and discrimination based on gender identity was prohibited in 2014. The same protections are now guaranteed by TCU as well. Although it can be slow, progress is being made. Looking at our own history at TCU gives us the opportunity to own up to the mistakes of the past as well as continue the fight for equal rights that was started by those before us.