During the years after 2008, and especially since 2014, Loma Linda University (LLU) made dramatic changes in its attitudes toward LGBT students, faculty, and staff, and its regulations applying to them. When I was asked to update a presentation that I had made in 2017 to the Asheville, North Carolina, Adventist Forum on the Adventist Church and its LGBT children and members, it was one change that clearly needed to be documented. Since I now live in Loma Linda, I interviewed 30-plus key administrators, faculty, and past and present students during a six-month period beginning in December 2019. I also checked out relevant changes made to policies and handbooks over time. As usual with my research interviews, I promised interviewees anonymity and confidentiality. I do not cite the names of those interviewed or who gave me each piece of information, nor do I tell others verbally what any particular person has told me.
LLU has long had a reputation of being especially inhospitable to gay and lesbian students and faculty. As a General-Conference-owned institution, it adhered to denominational guidelines and philosophy more closely than some other colleges. Its leaders held well-worn Adventist negative attitudes, making its policies and language reflect traditional positions of society and church, and they were thus slow to change even as attitudes within society shifted. The original LLU statement on sexual standards, written by faculty from the marriage and family counseling, psychiatry, and religion departments, appeared in the Faculty Handbook in 1988 and was then added to the Student Handbook. It consisted mainly of a list of behaviors not permitted, extending from bestiality and pederasty to homosexuality and promiscuous heterosexual activity. In its Student Handbook for 1998, the university’s statement on its nondiscrimination policy and Title IX did not cite sexual orientation or gender identity among the protected categories, and it explained this by stating that it claimed exemptions from the Title IX provisions where they conflicted “with church teachings.” The only clause that mentioned homosexuality was the sexual standards policy, which forbade any non-heterosexual expression. “All forms of sexual expression and conduct between heterosexuals outside of marriage, or between homosexuals, are contrary to the ideals of the University and will result in disciplinary action,” it said.
Since the Handbook’s description of discrimination policy did not mention sexual orientation, LGBT students experiencing discrimination had no recourse. If a gay student applying for admission revealed their orientation in their application or interviews, they could be refused. A same-sex couple living together while part of the university could be expelled or fired. LGBT students, staff, and faculty members had reason for their fear.
In September 2000, LLU President B. Lyn Behrens told a local newspaper that faculty were fired and students expelled if caught or suspected of breaking the university rules banning homosexual conduct. The university marked on student records that the dismissal was because of immorality, and they would not receive recommendation letters or help in finding other schools to accept them. When the practice came to the attention of the ACLU, it warned the LLU administration that such policies could violate a new state anti-discrimination law that went into effect in January 2001. When LLU ignored the letter, the ACLU decided to focus attention on the university itself. It submitted a follow-up article to the newspaper in February 2001 that caused a furor on campus because it had been timed to appear just before the visit of a medical school accreditation team. The administration felt vulnerable, as LLU had earlier experienced problems with accreditation. When the university discovered that the ACLU had placed a notice on its website inviting people who had experienced discrimination and harassment at LLU to approach them, and that more than 20 had already come forward and were willing to bring charges and testify, the administration agreed to protect homosexual faculty and students who did not overtly practice homosexuality, and to help others, when found, to relocate to other schools.
Nevertheless, in an August 2002 article in the Adventist Review, the LLU vice president for diversity, Leslie Pollard, reported being asked about the university’s position on sexual orientation after making a presentation on health care and diversity at a national conference. His answer was that “Loma Linda has one standard applicable to both hetero- and homosexual persons: celibacy before marriage; monogamy within marriage.” The discriminatory intent of the standard was clear, for same-sex marriage was not then legal anywhere in the US. In response to another question, he added that Loma Linda did not knowingly hire practicing homosexuals or extend benefits to their partners. Under the leadership of Behrens, LLU had endorsed diversity “as ordained by God”—a phrase chosen in order to exclude LGBT people.
Since LLU did not grill would-be students or faculty about their sexuality, some LGBT people were inevitably part of its community. However, in those decades it made no attempt to protect them from discrimination or abuse, and actively discriminated against them itself.
As US public attitudes toward LGBT people changed and were reflected in turn in court decisions and new laws, LLU administrators gradually realized that the university’s discriminatory policies were likely to cause problems. Such concerns led to intermittent changes in LLU policies and handbooks. The first appeared in 1994, in a special section of the Student Handbook concerning the graduate school. While it again did not list sexual orientation and gender identity under the categories protected from discrimination, it did state explicitly that “enrolment of students in Graduate School programs is not conditioned on their political or sexual orientation; in these areas the School’s policy is directed towards conduct or disruptive behavior, not orientation.” LLU administration had added the statement at that time because its absence had become an issue during a reaccreditation visit for the psychology program. The university delayed the publication of the Handbook in order to allow the change to be included. It introduced a new principle: the protection of the category when it came to admission (at that point just to the graduate school), but continued discipline for any sexual expression by homosexual individuals. LLU later extended the principle to the whole university.
By 2003, key administrators in the School of Medicine had become sympathetic to LGBT students so that their opinions differed from the official LLU stance. In 2007, when Behrens learned that a medical student was undergoing transgender management by LLU faculty and staff, she insisted that the individual not be permitted to complete the transition while at LLU. Behrens saw herself as representing church views as president and was careful not to move ahead of it in such matters. The denomination had not at that time addressed the transgender issue. The chair of the board, a General Conference appointee, praised Behrens for her position. However, LLU faculty members had been involved with patients undergoing gender transition as early as 1975.
In 2008, with the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of same-sex marriage and then the campaign over Proposition 8, designed to reverse that ruling, it became obvious that LLU would soon need to address its treatment of LGBT students, faculty, and staff. The university legal counsel, Kent Hansen, asked new president Richard Hart to appoint a committee to consider how to assess such issues, for he considered it problematical that university lawyers often found themselves forced to make complex decisions by default. Consequently, Hart appointed an ad hoc committee chaired by Hansen to work on LGBT-related issues. The committee coalesced around a “three-point standard”: three principles that would all be taken into account when dealing with LGBT-related issues. They included the teachings of the Adventist Church, what secular laws required, and the compassion that Jesus taught. When the committee’s recommendation went to the university’s board, it was persuaded to accept the principles. They are still in effect.
In embracing the three-point standard, LLU was responding to the difficult situation in which it found itself. On one hand, the church had been adopting increasingly conservative stances concerning LBGT matters. But on the other hand, the state of California had become increasingly supportive of LGBT rights and protections, and some of the key LLU administrators were becoming personally sympathetic toward that approach. Moreover, since the purpose of Loma Linda University Medical Center was to serve the community, it could not refuse to help any group of people, being committed to emulating the healing ministry of Christ. In endorsing the three principles, the university increased its flexibility. It no longer bound itself to follow the official church position.
Meanwhile, the School of Medicine was preparing for an accreditation visit in 2008, and Dean Roger Hadley was aware that it could draw attention to the LLU stance toward LGBT students and staff/faculty, and the implications of that for their treatment of LGBT patients. At a meeting, he gained the support of key figures for his view that change was essential. He felt that he had to be able to state that the school did not discriminate. To his surprise and relief, the accreditation team did not ask direct questions on the topic. However, the experience led him to recognize that it was better for the School of Medicine to focus on caring for its LGBT patients and students than to risk its accreditation, even if that meant being at odds with the church.
In 2010, Jonathan Heldt, the leader of Pacific Union College’s LGBT support group, published the article “Being Gay at PUC,” in Spectrum. In it, he noted that he had been admitted to the LLU medical school and planned to attend there later that year. The medical school braced for a flood of protesting letters but received none and interpreted it as a straw in the wind.
Through the years, the LLU Student Handbook made gradual changes in policy clauses relevant to LGBT students. By 2011, the student management section forbade stigmatizing or degrading a student because of sexual orientation. In 2013, the medical school moved ahead of the university in a document included in the orientation material issued to incoming medical students titled “Principles Regarding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”: “Any form of discrimination or harassment based on personal characteristics of race, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity will not be tolerated.” It was the first mention of gender identity in any LLU policy. Recognizing that issues of sexual orientation and gender identity can present unique challenges to students, it announced that support resources were available, and reassured the students that “We do not promote ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative therapies’ for sexual orientation.” The university issued the statement each year during 2013–2016.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that where states had endorsed same-sex marriage, it would be the law. Those states included California. In a 2015 decision, the Court created marriage equality throughout the nation. Both decisions ushered in five years of dramatic changes in this area at LLU, beginning in 2014–2015. During this period, LLU moved to an open endorsement of differences with denominational leadership. The university adopted a much more engaged stance than it had with other social issues such as women’s ordination because it viewed homosexuality as a medical rather than a theological issue. Another reason for LLU’s greater responsiveness is that it meets the world far more than other Adventist organizations. It sees 1.5 million patients per year and gives much more credence to scientific evidence than the General Conference.
Since LLU is a medical and health-related university, some of the research and teaching done there was immediately relevant to LGBT issues. For example, the research of Dr. Kerby Oberg on fetal formation allowed him to speak with authority in a course about human growth that discussed the developmental basis of intersex people, who have both male and female sexual organs, and also about the way sexual organs and brains can get out of sync, a situation that can result in an individual seeking to change gender. Oberg showed that such variations could be biological rather than theological and therefore not a choice.
Earlier General Conference administrations had typically left it to LLU to solve those issues affecting it. However, the presidents Robert Folkenberg and especially Ted Wilson engaged more directly with the school. When a letter of complaint alerted Wilson to the fact that LLU was the second-largest provider of in vitro fertilization services to LGBT people, he asked Hart to stop. Hart replied that by medical judgment it is a legitimate activity, so LLU does it. It was explained to me that LLU wants to honor the church, but it has to also be true to its mission and ethics. Denominational leadership has only limited leverage since the church greatly reduced its financial contribution to the university and fewer than one-third of its board members are now officers of the General Conference, North American Division, or American union conferences.
The concerns of Title IX broadened to include discrimination against LGBT people after 2010. Consequently, Cari Dominguez, LLU’s Title IX Officer, chose to rewrite the LLU Title IX policy. The 2014–2015 Student Handbook Title IX Section noted that “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (‘Title IX’) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities at institutions receiving federal financial assistance.” It then declared: “Any form of sex discrimination or sexual misconduct—including harassment, coercion, intimidation, or sexual violence—is reprehensible; runs counter to LLU’s teachings and guiding beliefs; and will not be tolerated. In keeping with this commitment, Loma Linda University maintains a strict policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on personal characteristics of…sexual orientation, gender identity.” Since policy handbooks are upgraded periodically, it took two more years before the change appeared in the separate statement of its nondiscrimination policy, which continued until then to claim exemption from Title IX rules that conflicted with church teachings (2015:70). Hansen advised the university board that because LLU did not ask applicants about their sexual orientation and therefore inevitably had LGBT students, faculty, and staff, they should be protected from harassment and humiliation. However, the policies prohibiting same-sex sexual contact remained in force.
The question of how to respond to transgender students became more prominent in Adventist universities about this time. Some administrators became especially concerned about their dormitories (which were all single-sex) and bathrooms. However, when they asked LLU about this, the university pointed out that bathrooms were designed to protect privacy. LLU administrators realized that certain controversial areas such as sexuality rarely get discussed in any depth in Adventist churches. For example, thoughtful sermons addressing such issues are very rare, creating confusion about such topics and making it difficult to resolve them.
LLU’s insurance policy, provided by Adventist Risk Management, had long covered the health of domestic partners. As laws changed, such insurance began to apply to same-sex domestic partners. Once the law recognized same-sex marriage, LLU changed its policies in order to include them too and adjusted the language of its policies accordingly. While some Adventists might regard it as extraordinary, they do not realize that, for example, because several of the conferences within the Pacific Union choose to buy commercial health insurance instead of the more costly plans available through the church, their decision obliges them to offer coverage to same-sex couples.
The 2015-2016 Student Handbook, published shortly after the Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage throughout the nation, removed the reference to homosexual sexual relations being contrary to the ideals of the university and subject to disciplinary action. It continued to state that heterosexual marriage was God’s ideal and focused on premarital and extramarital sex as subject to discipline. It was explained to me that the statement’s silence concerning same-sex marriage indicated that the Court’s decision had rendered it legal on campus, even though LLU continued to regard it as not the ideal. Such discussions recognized that when the church conceded its former position on divorce and allowed a less-than-ideal alternative, any argument from Scripture flew out the door. Loma Linda’s policies of aligning itself with the law and emulating the compassion of Christ became the main reasons for the changes at this time.
During the 2014 and 2016 elections, several faith-based colleges in California campaigned against Democrat office-holders in their primaries, endeavoring to pressure them to stop adopting pro-LGBT legislation. However, both the LLU and La Sierra University councils—prompted by Kent Hansen, the lawyer who represented both of them—concluded that such a stance was not appropriate for Adventists. Since Adventists are themselves a minority, they should treat other minorities as Adventists desire to be treated. Hansen argued that it would ultimately be the wisest course for the church to follow.
The dominant stance towards LGBT people on campus during those years was “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Many faculty and students were personally sympathetic, but it was difficult for students to know who they were because of the silence. Those in administrative positions, such as deans and sub-deans, were ahead in becoming supportive. They had become increasingly aware of the LGBT students, faculty, and staff around them, and knowing and appreciating them had changed their attitudes. The students who were the first on campus to be open about their sexual orientations had begun the medical course in 2012 and 2014. Both groups reported that they had found many students, especially non-Adventist Christians, very supportive. The student body thus reflected the changing attitudes in society.
Beginning in these years, Henry Lamberton, the associate dean for student affairs in the medical school, made it his practice, in his first address to the entering students each year, to tell them a story that warmed the hearts of all LGBT students. In the context of assuring them they could be safe there, he told them of an LGBT student whose grades had dropped because of deep depression when the pressure to continue hiding his identity became unbearable. Lamberton had encouraged him to come out to his family. The student’s mother later told Lamberton that his support had probably saved her son’s life.
Similarly, when LGBT students attended the medical embryology class on fetal development, they found that in tracing the growth of the fetus, the course addressed human diversity, including intersexuality, as a biological variation. Also, in the ethics classes taken in the School of Religion, professors declared there was a place for LGBT people in Christianity. Consequently, LGBT students felt supported by science and encouraged by Christians.
During 2015–2016, the School of Medicine had been preparing for another reaccreditation visit. The changing societal climate toward LGBT people had raised the profile of their issues and the likelihood that accreditors would refer to them. With this in mind, Dean Hadley set out to prepare the way for them to state firmly that they did not discriminate. Unlike in 2008, when he had sought the support of a few key figures, now he looked for broad agreement. When he showed the suggested policy to all the deans and assistant deans in the School of Medicine and then held a secret ballot, all 14 endorsed it.
During the years 2016–2017, the process of changing attitudes toward LGBT people at LLU sped up as President Hart pursued a plan to make LLU truly welcoming to them. It became even more relevant by the introduction of state legislation that would have made schools that discriminate against LGTB students ineligible for Cal Grants, an important source of student scholarships. Although some on campus and beyond declared that they would rather the university close than compromise on this “principle,” Hart and other administrators pursued a different course.
In May 2016, Hart asked Dr. Jana Boyd, the newly hired director of the Employee and Student Assistance Program, to participate in an ad hoc committee working toward making LLU a safe and affirming environment for LGBT students and faculty/staff. She created a resource site for LGBT information and materials, which involved meeting with LGBT people on campus in order to get their input about what resources were needed. They asked for more education on campus concerning cultural competency, that healthcare providers be trained to provide competent care to LGBT people, and that educational resources be made available online. Also, they requested a list of physical and mental healthcare providers who were safe for them to approach, and for a list of allies whom they could ask for help if they had concerns or were struggling.
Until 2016, LLU had employed a vice president for diversity, who focused especially on Black and Hispanic students. However, when that person left in 2016, Hart chose to replace the post with a diversity council that he chaired himself. Concerning itself with a much greater range of diversity than heretofore, it now included LGBT people.
Hart also invited a current transgender student, a former gay student, and a faculty member who was the mother of two gay children to present their stories at meetings of the university leadership council, whose membership included most of the primary administrators and leaders on campus. He also arranged for a close friend since high school and college, who had transitioned from male to female in the 1990s, to share her story. In September 2016, he made understanding LGBT people the theme of a leadership retreat at Lake Arrowhead, where Provost Ronald L. Carter gave an impassioned keynote speech about accepting diversity, and Christopher Blake, a professor at Union College, conducted “A Sanctuary of Conversation” workshop, which focused on making the campus a sanctuary for LGBT students. Those events helped change the climate among the university leadership.
In December 2016, the university agreed to sponsor a humanities Sabbath afternoon panel discussion on “Religion and the LGBT Community.” Initiated by Dr. Jim Walters, a professor in the School of Religion, and a closeted gay student, it received approval from both Hart and Jon Paulien, the dean of the School of Religion, who participated in the panel. After the meeting ended, some LGBT students and others gathered near the front, meeting and conversing with one another. That led to the formation of an unofficial LGBT group on campus. However, an internet video of the session drew opposition from the General Conference and other Adventist sources.
All these efforts and events opened and then broadened the discussion about LGBT people on campus, and it became clear that many had already become aware of and sympathetic toward them as a result of the societal conversations. The profile of the LGBT issue had risen considerably on campus during 2016, especially among administrators.
In December 2016, Hart received an invitation to a symposium at Santa Barbara organized by the North American Division. Its goal was to try to understand transgender issues. One of the speakers there was the LLU professor Kerby Oberg, who spoke on “The Biologic Basis of Reproductive Development.” Hart then arranged for him to make the same presentation during the next month to the university leadership council and a committee of the university’s board of trustees. In both presentations, Oberg provided evidence that gender identity could have a biological basis and as such would not be a choice, making it a medical rather than a theological issue. Hart also arranged for a transgender student to tell her story to the LLU diversity council and for Oberg to speak after her, explaining the biological basis of reproduction. It had the effect of placing her story within a scientific context.
The February 2, 2017 issue of Notes from the President, Hart’s regular email letter to the campus, was a bold statement focused on relating to LGBT people. Written with the support of the diversity council and vetted for scientific accuracy by Oberg, it sought to broaden the discussion across campus, especially beyond the leadership. In essence, it made public what had already become the stance of LLU. Coincidently coming a week after the inauguration of Donald Trump as US president, who had pledged to remove transgender people from the military, LLU instead pledged to continue its own progress.
The release of Hart’s statement caused a dramatic change in the situation on campus. Students and faculty discussed it, and the LGBT students saw it as a miracle—which encouraged them to open up. Hart received far more responses to that letter than to others. The vast majority of them were supportive, though a few were irate. Hart continued to feature LGBT people and their families in meetings of the leadership council in order to humanize the issue. His purpose has been to speak at the emotional level.
At a meeting of the LLU faculty council on February 8, 2017, less than a week after the distribution of Hart’s letter, he talked of the need to embrace LGBT people and said he believed the board supported him. The dean of the school of religion responded, “I want to let you know that if the church leadership rebukes you on this topic, the School of Religion is 100 percent behind you.”
At a board meeting two weeks later, General Conference President Ted Wilson showed antipathy to the decision. After Hansen’s presentation, which Wilson had mistakenly assumed would mention attitudes to LGBT people, he nevertheless said what he had prepared, stating that “LLU will love the LGBTs”—that is, he acknowledged that he could not reverse the decision—“but they will never be accepted as church members.” Because someone asked a different question and shifted the topic, no discussion of Wilson’s comment ensued. Many at LLU believed that a real difference in attitude exists between the General Conference and the North American Division in this area. While Wilson is clearly opposed to making LGBT people welcome, many North American Division officers and union leaders have privately given LLU encouragement.
Jana Boyd had worked on LGBT issues since May 2016. She had gotten to know many of the LGBT people on campus while working to make relevant resources available online. The cultural competency training she used focused on making healthcare providers aware of the reality of health disparities that LGBT individuals face—either because of poor treatment by providers or fear of possible mistreatment. The training also dealt with questions concerning gender and sexual orientation, and on the use of pronouns—on not making assumptions concerning how patients wish to be addressed. She also began to work with LGBT people toward creating an officially-sponsored LGBT group on campus. The support group had its first meeting in July 2017 and has met twice a month since then. It was the first such entity officially sanctioned on any Adventist campus. Once launched, it had considerable freedom, for it was charged simply with providing support to LGBT people on campus. Attracting not only LGBT students but also staff and faculty members and student allies, its meetings have provided opportunities for members to discuss both personal and campus-wide problems. The organization is well known on campus, for it publicizes itself to entering students on the opening day of each academic year, and its announcements appear, along with those of other groups, on monitors throughout the campus. The university portal now allows anyone wishing to utilize different pronouns to make their desire known.
The LGBT students have also wanted their unofficial club to have official status. A recognized club could be more proactive than the support group. They describe the support group as where they come for mutual support and therapy but not where they organize events or do outreach. Administrative circles expressed some discomfort with moving forward when official recognition for their club was first suggested in 2017—Hart feared it could become demanding and raise tensions. But in February 2020, the LGBT students made a formal proposal that led to the approval of an official LGBT club. It had its first official meeting in May 2020. Student-led, it plans to organize seminars, outreach, and pride parade outings, and to press for better training for medical students concerning the needs of their LGBT patients.
The LGBT students intend to urge the university to improve how students are taught about the LGBT community, for they see the current curriculum as problematic. Examples given to me were that in a behavioral science class for first-year medical students, the only mention of LGBT patients was that they had a greater risk of suicide and mental illnesses. When addressing families, there was no education concerning what a gay family could look like, or how LGBT parents have contributed to the health of children. Little mention was made of social stigma as a source of psychiatric statistics, nor that rejection by families and society are significant causes of problems. The class did not discuss transgender people at all. In a second-year behavioral science class, the professor interviewed a 12-year-old girl as a case study. She had been told she had the right to decline to answer any question, and she shared only her name, school, her struggle with depression, and details concerning her relationship with her dysfunctional family. However, after she left the class, the professor disclosed that she was a lesbian and her love relationship had broken off—that is, he shared information that she had chosen not to disclose. He also commented that a 12-year-old thinking she was lesbian was obviously confused. A professor in another class talked about how physicians should approach transgender people, describing them as wrong and sinful.
How has the more welcoming attitude affected the hiring of faculty and staff? In 2017, when a clinical department was in the process of recruiting a key specialist, it arranged for the top candidate to make a second visit, and she then stated that she would bring her wife with her. After the visit, the chair of the department was all for hiring her, and the deans and vice deans were all supportive of the decision. When the dean of medicine decided to take a poll of all department chairs in order to check on their thoughts, a strong majority endorsed the choice.
The number of LGB and Trans students who are open on campus has increased since 2017, as both more have enrolled and more have become visible. However, I was told that “there still exists concern among LGBT students and employees about how their orientation or gender identity may affect them academically and professionally,” and that such fears result from the fact that clinical performance evaluations are inevitably subjective. The students fear that their efforts to get good residencies could be torpedoed by those who disapprove of LGBT people. Such fears are real. While antagonistic chairs are not the norm, bias does exist and can affect opportunities. Since evaluations are very powerful in shaping their futures, medical students are cautious about making waves. The LGBT support group currently has about 12 members while many others still choose to remain closeted.
I am aware of three LGBT couples who currently live together. Three transgender people are active in the support group, with another two students who are fairly active on campus—as are also a couple of LLU employees. In addition, I know of five gay and lesbian faculty and staff. It is highly likely that more exist in each category. I also know of two transgender individuals who have transitioned, and another now in the process. A Mormon intersex student who had changed gender identity back and forth spoke to the diversity council. However, no one with a same-sex partner has yet been chosen for a high-level post on campus. If that were not possible, it would indicate that discrimination continues to exist. However, since it has already occurred at other Adventist colleges, it suggests that it will also happen in time at LLU.
LLU has made dramatic changes toward making the campus a safe and welcoming place, but it still has a distance to go. The university is continuing to work on improving the situation. For example, curriculum committees, with LGBT students involved, are updating the medical school programs. In 2019, the long-present statement that the heterosexual married couple is God’s ideal for sexual expression was finally removed from the sexual standards section of the Student Handbook.
Concern on the LLU campus exists that the General Conference could try to replace Hart when he retires with a president who would attempt to reverse the changes. However, most of those asked about it thought that it would be well-nigh impossible to achieve because of the broad support for the changes on campus and the fact that only one-third of the board members are church officers. Another one-third are drawn from the campus and the remaining one-third from laypeople. The new approach is now well established. A lot of pushback would result if the General Conference leadership attempted to make a power play, with a serious chance that programs would lose their accreditation if it were successful.
Some administrators point to the fact that in American history the separations that have occurred between medical institutions and the denominations that founded them have almost always been at the initiative of the churches themselves, and wonder if that could happen to LLU. At this point, while some conservative members are frustrated with Loma Linda as a so-called bastion of liberalism, a great deal of evidence suggests that church leaders are proud of the university and its medical center, and recognize that it is inevitably different from other church-connected institutions.
It seems strange that while LLU has become welcoming to LGBT people, the university church situated on its campus makes no such statement. Unlike La Sierra University Church, it has lagged behind the university even though its senior pastor, Randy Roberts, is also a vice-president of the university’s umbrella organization, Loma Linda University Health, and in that capacity, he must be well aware of the changes made by the university. Most of the administrators interviewed surprised me by not being aware of the disparity between the university and its church until I asked them the reasons for it.
What helped to produce the changes that have been discussed? I see six factors interacting together:
1. American attitudes toward LGBT people have altered dramatically in the past 20 years, and LLU was much more exposed to them than other Adventist centers because of its focus on medicine and science and its medical role in the community.
2. Such changes in societal attitudes in turn affected court decisions and laws. Those could impact the availability of state funds to the university and students, as well as raise concerns with visiting accrediting bodies. The various academic programs were inevitably worried about questions that accreditors might raise. While the most difficult ones came from the psychologists, the medical school, which had previously experienced problems with reaccreditation, was also very concerned. Title IX requirements and court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage placed new pressures on the university, forcing its recognition that its policies need to be in tune with the law.
3. LLU became increasingly concerned about treating all patients, including LGBT patients, effectively and equally, and with training its students to do so.
4. LLU was proud because both its faculty and students were drawn from many countries and were racially and culturally varied. Its commitment to diversity broadened through time to include also sexual orientation and gender identity.
5. Scientific research, especially Dr. Kerby Oberg’s persistence in providing current and accurate medical evidence on reproductive development, helped both administrators and students to understand the complexity of sexual differentiation and the biological basis of sexual diversity. Oberg used scientific information to show that nature is not always binary, thus validating the existence of transgender and intersex people. Administrators became convinced that gender identity and sexual orientation are medical, not theological, matters.
6. The personal commitment of several key administrators evolved over time, becoming very different from that of earlier administrations. Knowledge of the angst of particular LGBT friends, family members, and students, their certainty that they too were children of God, and their personal commitment to emulate Christ’s love for all without distinction led such administrators to become strongly committed to making LLU a truly welcoming campus. For example, there is no doubt that Hart’s transgender long-term friend, whom he remains close to, helped make him sensitive to the plight of LGBT faculty and students at LLU and convinced him that creating a truly welcoming campus was the right thing for a Christian university to do. Without his commitment and zeal, the changes may not have happened at this time.
The staff who provide help to students in the other Adventist colleges and universities in the NAD are aware of the dramatic developments toward LGBT acceptance on the Loma Linda campus. Some have told me that they see Loma Linda as better positioned to move in directions that the General Conference has not considered. They hope that it can create a wake that will also propel other campuses in a similar direction. Since they recognize that state-sponsored regulations helped push Loma Linda toward dramatic changes, they realize that the time may come when similar regulations will also pressure their colleges to be more caring toward their LGBT students. Furthermore, they see an irony in that pattern, in which developments by governments or courts prod Adventist institutions to be more Christian in their actions.
Ronald Lawson, PhD, is a sociologist studying urban conflicts and sectarian religions. A lifelong Seventh-day Adventist, he is retired from Queens College, CUNY, and now lives in Loma Linda, CA.
Image credit: Loma Linda University Medical Center, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons / Spectrum
We invite you to join our community through conversation by commenting below. We ask that you engage in courteous and respectful discourse. You can view our full commenting policy by clicking here.