DeGioia Promises LGBTQ Center
Working Groups Submit Reports
The remaining two LGBTQ working groups submitted their final recommendations to University President John J. DeGioia on Tuesday, leading to the announced creation of an LGBTQ resource center for the university.
Vice President for Public Affairs and Strategic Development and co-coordinator of the working groups Daniel Porterfield said that, among all of the recommendations, the creation of the resource center is the most significant.
The recommendation, made by the working group on resources, also calls for two full-time staffs and several student employees for the center. Porterfield said that the resource center will offer “a large array of services, resources and opportunities” to LGBTQ students but also “to the larger community [so] all can benefit.”
He also said the university intends to search nationwide for a director for the center and hopes to find one by the beginning of the 2008-2009 academic year.
While gathering ideas on how to create Georgetown’s LGBTQ resource center, members of the working groups met with the directors of similar resource centers at Princeton, Duke and Syracuse Universities and the University of Pennsylvania and visited the resource center at George Mason University.
The groups, comprised of student, faculty and administrators, were expected to make recommendations to DeGioia and University Provost James O’Donnell throughout last semester, following two alleged hate crimes against Georgetown students. Porterfield said the working group on resources completed its recommendations in December, and the working groups on education and reporting presented their recommendations to DeGioia and O’Donnell on Tuesday.
The working group on education’s recommendations call for programs that “not only encompass LGBTQ issues but also larger issues of diversity,” Porterfield said.
The proposed educational programs are aimed at “getting our students to be cohesive and accepting,” said Rosemary Kilkenny, vice president for institutional diversity and equity and co-coordinator of the working groups, with recommendations that include collaboration with the Office of International Programs to help students look more closely at the diversity and acceptance of their country choices.
“[We want students to] think about the nature and even the laws of the countries they’re considering,” she said.
Other recommendations include training programs for athletic coaches as well as new education programs and retreats for students.
The working group on reporting recommended initiatives to “streamline and make [a] more comprehensive and transparent system of evaluating and reporting incidents of bias and hate,” Porterfield said.
“We want to make sure students are aware of the avenues for reporting,” Kilkenny added.
Porterfield said the working groups worked hard to offer recommendations that were consistent with Georgetown’s Catholic and Jesuit identity.
“All members of the committee took our identity very seriously,” he said. “Each working group had at least one Jesuit on it, and [group members] said they were tremendous assets to the work.” Members of the working groups met with the president and the provost on Wednesday.
“People felt very good about the work,” Kilkenny said. “There was this bond that was formed between the groups. It was really a celebration,” she said.
In late October, DeGioia announced reforms to further awareness and education on LGBTQ issues, including the formation of the working groups. Each working group consists of students as well as faculty or administrators.
The working groups held a town hall meeting in December to further gather ideas and input on the pending recommendations. In addition, the working groups, along with Kilkenny and Porterfield, held meetings on four consecutive Fridays with various campus leaders, including O’Donnell, Athletic Director Bernard Muir, Georgetown College Dean Jane McAuliffe and members of the undergraduate admissions staff, Counseling and Psychiatric Services and the Office of Residence Life. According to Porterfield, the meetings focused on how each department could contribute to the LGBTQ discussion.
“[We discussed] how their organization was responding to the needs of LGBTQ students,” he said.
These meetings were especially valuable to the working group members, Porterfield said. “They recognized that so many people in the community wanted them to do this.”
In an email to the Georgetown community sent last night, DeGioia and O’Donnell announced that Kilkenny will serve as chair of a new university-wide committee that will be formed this semester to focus on implementation of the working groups’ recommendations.
Porterfield added that, when these recommendations are implemented, Georgetown will be a “national model."


Feb 10 2008 at 2:08 a.m.
It would be great if Georgetown would establish a chapter of Courage to serve these students.
http://www.couragerc.net/
Feb 10 2008 at 6:07 a.m.
It would be even better if the university was able to spend its money on programs that could make a difference...
Feb 10 2008 at 7:27 p.m.
What is a "program" about LGBTQ diversity? I just don't understand what that IS in practical terms. What exactly is money being spent on? If some Georgetown students for some unknown reason still lack basic decency and respect for other people, I'm totally unconvinced that a resource center and "programming" is going to improve the situation.
Feb 11 2008 at 2:33 a.m.
It is hard to believe that the university is going to commit valuable resources to this matter. Not far from the Hilltop kids are going to bed hungry and the LGBTQ wants full time staff to do exactly what?
If there are students,faculty or coaches that don't respect others its easy.... throw them out......
Are all student programs funded equally? What are the university guidelines for funding?
Going downhill fast folks. When is someone on the Hilltop going to stand up Georgetown priorities and not cater to special interests no matter who they are.
"We are Georgetown" needs to mean something more than basketball.
Feb 11 2008 at 6:06 a.m.
If you're really concerned about the starving kids in DC, you could always send your child to your local state university, or even better, community college, and donate the difference to charity.
Of course, you aren't concerned about starving kids at all, because it's a meaningless argument. The money being spent here is not money which would otherwise be feeding starving children, so that argument is a complete non sequitur. Clearly there is something else motivating your criticism. Care to share what it is?
Feb 11 2008 at 9:40 p.m.
Conor,
I don't know you and you don't know me.I do care about starving children everywhere and I do something significant about it everyday because I have made it a priority in my life. I know, I owe...My argument is about Georgetown priorities, which I believe are too often reactive rather than proactive.
To suggest I have other motives is wrong my friend.
I could be wrong. But it seems to me, it's People who are creating a problem by making others feel a significant need for understanding and support. Quite frankly,a resource center won't change that.Unfortunately, My experience has been that few people actually change.They will under pressure but only superficially.
Devoting your energy and intelligence to help others will have a ripple effect on everyone,everywhere. You're not a kid anymore but a lucky one that made it to Gtown. If your priority is the Resource Center then I wish you luck and Peace.
All the best.
You Don't Know me.
Jan 06 2009 at 3:52 p.m.
Why is a Catholic university embracing an organization that clearly goes against Catholic doctrine? We realize that Jesuits tend to be "liberal" Catholics, but we feel that the schools resources should be spent in enhancing the GU experience for all, not just a few.