Ondatje 1

Frames Paper Jamie Ondatje Azusa Pacific University

Ondatje 2 An issue that I became aware of last year when I worked as the Clubs and Orgs Coordinator at APU is the fact that APU does not have a formally recognized LGBTQ club. Students have tried to start one and have been denied on the basis that acknowledging an LGBTQ club would be incongruent with the Christian mission of the college. Without official club status, this group is not able to receive funding from student fees like other clubs do, and they cannot reserve spaces or post flyers on campus. Because of this, they have become an underground group that meets off-campus and relies on the support of non-APU advisors to help oversee the organization. The frame that best illustrates this issue is the political frame, as it views organizations as roiling arenas, hosting ongoing contests of individual and group interests (Bolman & Deal, p. 188). The political frame is woven into issues on many different types of college campuses because there is a delicate balance that must be achieved to appease all of the stakeholders, which include students, parents, faculty, staff, donors, and alumni. Without this balance, support (in the form of donations, networking relationships, and enrollment) for an institution can quickly dwindle, as key players become disappointed. One of the core assumptions of the political frame is that members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality (p. 188). This could not be more true for higher education institutions, especially when you account for different generations of supporters and alumni who cherish the institution for what it was in their time or era, as well as parents and students from all different beliefs, backgrounds, and

Ondatje 3 geographical locations who all have their own ideas of what experience a university should provide. Examining this issue from the political frame, I think APU is addressing it as best it can. The key decision makers at APU know that acknowledging an LGBTQ club supports a certain lifestyle that many of its stakeholders feel is fundamentally at odds with the Christian faith and Christian mission of the college. Because of this, they know that officially recognizing this club would result in controversy that would ultimately cost them a lot of support. Although the president of the university certainly has enough authority to recognize this club, APUs supporters have power in their control of rewards, including professional networks, money, and political support (p. 197). Students who support the LGBTQ community also have some control of rewards in the form of their tuition; they have coercive power if they choose to protest, and they have the power to damage APUs reputation in certain circles. However, based on the power of the majority, supporters of the LGBTQ club are simply outnumbered, and therefore are not the most prominent voice that APU is hearing. The key to this being the right course of action at the moment is timing. Currently, it appears that the majority of the institutions supporters do not support the LGBTQ lifestyle, but that could change in 10, 20, or 50 years. As recently as 10 years ago, homosexual students at APU did not feel comfortable coming out within the institution. Now many homosexual students at APU are open about their identity and feel comfortable in the current campus climate. Once this generation becomes

Ondatje 4 donors, administrators, or trustee members at APU, the perspective could be very different than what it currently is. There is one change I would make within this frame that I think would still allow APU to maintain its political interests. I would change the policy for reserving spaces on campus so any individual student could reserve a room on campus for their own purposes, rather than requiring them to be associated with a recognized club or department. I believe this would better support all students who have interests outside of recognized clubs and want to be able to have equal access to resources on campus to congregate, practice, discuss, etc. I realize this is a slippery slope in the fact that giving these independent groups all of the same rights as clubs would allow them to post flyers and give them funding, which would ultimately indicate that the institution supports and promotes the ideas and beliefs of those individual groups. For this reason, I would still maintain different privileges for recognized clubs, such as participation in club fairs, advertising events on campus, and receiving funding, but allow non-affiliated students the basic right to use spaces on the campus at which they pay tuition. Another frame that is relevant in analyzing this issue is the human resources frame, which states organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the converse (p.117). With one of its mottos being Everyone matters, you would assume that APU would fit nicely into the human resources frame. It does and it doesnt. On one hand, APU has many programs and resources that support the personal needs of its students, including a mentor program, a counseling center, the Center for Reconciliation and Diversity, and the Womens Resource Center. On the

Ondatje 5 other hand, the issue at hand shows that not all students needs are being met. Using Maslows Hierarchy of Needs as a lens, APUs mission should be to help students achieve self-actualizationdeveloping to ones fullest and actualizing ones ultimate potential (p. 120). However, in refusing to formally recognize LGBTQ students, APU is not helping these students obtain their need for self-actualization. They are satisfying only their basic needs, but not all of their social needs (belongingness, love, inclusion) or all of their ego needs (esteem, respect, and recognition). In a discussion about the campus climate, an APU student once told me she was frustrated by the complaints she frequently heard from underrepresented students. She said, If they dont like it here, they can leave. If this at all reflects the thoughts of APUs decision makers, then they are certainly not viewing this issue from the human resources frame. It does, however, bring up the concept of institutional fit. As Bolman and Deal put it, When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer (p. 117). Although her comments were mostly one-sided, this student did bring to light an important question about environmental fit: Is it the students responsibility to find an institution that is a good fit for them, or is it the institutions responsibility to insure that every student feels like it is a good fit for them? Or is it both? Within the perspective of the human resources frame, I would suggest a different course of action than the one APU is currently taking. To better satisfy the needs of LGBTQ students, I would recommend they recognize the group as an official club and provide them with all of the resources that other clubs are entitled

Ondatje 6 to, including use of campus facilities, freedom to promote their group, an APU advisor, and funding. This would make them feel included in the campus culture and recognized as an important part of APU. In a sense, it would show that everyone truly does matter, not just those who fit into the Christian ideology. Ultimately, the best course of action in situations of opposing interests is about balance. To use the concept of institutional fit as an example, it is not only the students responsibility to find an institution that is a good fit for them, it is also the institutions responsibility to make it easier for students to feel like they fit. If neither side did their part, the result would be very unsatisfied students and very empty universities. But if they both do their best to make their two visions overlap, they can find a happy medium where both parties needs are being met. The same is true for difficult administrative decisions. Viewing the issue through only one frame will always neglect someones needs, but multi-frame thinking gives us a more comprehensive picture of whats going on and what to do (p. 5).

Ondatje 7 References Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2011). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.