When Scott Chessare (COL ’10) came to Georgetown as a freshman, things on campus looked a lot different.

As a gay student, Chessare arrived on the Hilltop at a time when administrators were hesitant to engage with the LGBTQ community and GU Pride was comprised of only a few students who would meet sporadically.

That all changed after an alleged hate crime against a homosexual student in September sparked a backlash of campus-wide protest and inspired student groups to rally together for change in the university’s policy toward the LGBTQ community.

In response, Chessare, along with GU Pride Co-President Olivia Chitayat (COL ’10), sought to bring together students with different interests and different ideas around broader questions of campus diversity.

Chitayat said that Pride focused on establishing more allies and fostering dialogue with numerous campus groups.

Under the pair’s leadership, Pride began tabling in Red Square in October, attempting to gather signatures for a petition supporting reforms, including changes to university procedure for addressing hate crimes, expansion of resources for the LGBTQ community and improved education for students in issues related to bias and diversity.

A week and a half later, they had 1,500 signatures and had enlisted a wide base of support. The group held rallies in Red Square in support of its cause, and protestors wearing yellow T-shirts emblazoned with the words “I am” marched to Healy Hall to present University President John J. DeGioia with the petition.

When late one October night another student was shoved against Healy Hall while being called homophobic slurs, the movement gained momentum, and a group of professors voiced their concerns by issuing an open letter to Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson and DeGioia.

By the end of the month, DeGioia announced reforms that would better integrate the LGBTQ community into campus, a move that drew ire from conservative critics.

Chessare said that Chitayat brought a determination to make pride more inclusive and open to the greater community, which contributed to the successful campaign.

“What we found is that Olivia is extremely outgoing and really good at networking. … I was good at planning and working internally,” he said. “We ended up complementing each other really well.”

Both Chessare and Chitayat agree that Pride has changed dramatically in the past year from a group of roughly 15 dedicated members to an organization that garnered national attention.

Within a month, the group had far exceeded its initial goal to improve the already existing but stalled LGBTQ working group, with DeGioia’s announcement of the creation of three new working groups. One was charged with addressing issues of reporting relevant safety issues such as bias incidents and hate crimes, after criticism that the university waited too long to inform students of the alleged Sept. 9 attack that sent the victim to the hospital. The second focused on adding new resources for LGBTQ students, and the third was charged with examining new co-curricular educational initiatives. In February, DeGioia announced that Georgetown will create an LGBTQ resource center, which is set to open in the fall.

“We felt that the administration didn’t want to have a dialogue with us,” Chessare said. “But it’s not really constructive at this point to think about why they were initially unresponsive. There’s been a huge amount of involvement from the administration, and everyone from DeGioia on down has demonstrated their strong support for us.”

Chessare said that although GU Pride felt that it had a lot of internal support within the administration before last semester, it took the publicizing of the two hate crimes and DeGioia’s speech to bring it out.

The real push for reforms, Chessare said, came mostly from a large coalition of students and faculty frustrated with the administration’s initial response to the incidents.

“It was really an organic movement from the students,” he said. “We just happened to be presidents at the time.”

Chitayat saw her role this year as working together with Chessare to channel the energy of the movement. “It was a broader Pride effort,” she said. “We worked really well to facilitate that broader effort.”

Thirty-eight members of the Georgetown community participated in the working groups, including students, faculty, staff, alumni and Jesuit representatives.

In February, the three groups presented their final reports to DeGioia and University Provost James J. O’Donnell.

Perhaps the most notable reform that came out of the working groups’ recommendations was the development of the resource center.

“My general feeling is one of being really excited for Georgetown,” said Chessare, who, with Chitayat, was a member of the working group on resources. “With the resource center, we can take the next step in making a better, more accepting campus.”

The new resource center will also be focused on incorporating a variety of campus groups.

“I strongly feel that the most important role of the new resource center is for it to convey to the entire Georgetown community that though it may be an LGBTQ resource center, it really is there to provide everyone with its services,” Palacios said. He said that this includes everyone “from LGBTQ identified individuals, to allies, and to those who may still have mixed feelings about having an LGBTQ resource center at a Catholic university.”

The committee charged with selecting the staff for the resource center has yet to make a decision on who its first director will be. Ricardo Ortiz, associate professor of English and co-chair of the group on resources, said that while the staffing process is going “smoothly,” it is still incomplete. The initial proposal for the resource center recommended that the director begin work on July 1 or at some point in the summer.

Chessare, who, with Chitayat, has been involved in the selection process for the director, said that finalists for the position will be brought to campus next week. Chessare said he is confident that everything will be in place by the beginning of the fall semester.

For the working group on education, the greatest success has come from incorporating as many campus groups as possible into the reform efforts. “The best part has been getting so many people to say yes,” said Rosemary Kilkenny, vice president for institutional diversity and equity and co-chair of the group. She added that she and her colleagues had been meeting with “just about every group on campus,” including admissions, Blue and Gray, Athletics, Residence Life, Health Education and the Office of International Programs.

The recommendations from the working group on reporting, co-chaired by Tommaso Astarita, professor of history, and Dennis Williams, director of the Center for Multicultural Equity Access and associate dean of students, focused on “streamlining” the reporting of incidents of bias and discrimination.

Additionally, in response to the concerns over delays in reporting incidents of bias, the group recommended that any postponement in notification lasting more than two to three days after the event be accompanied by a note explicitly detailing the reasons for the delay.

Looking back, Chessare said he sees a different environment on campus.
“I feel more comfortable than I did a year ago,” he said. “There is more awareness on campus.”

Carlos Palacios (COL ’09), who was a member of the working group on resources, said he has also seen a powerful change take place.

“I was really annoyed and angered that Georgetown had done such a wonderful job at promoting itself when I was deciding which school to attend, and then when I got [here], it all seemed like a lie,” he said. “When I got to Georgetown as a freshman, I was extremely cautious and constantly worried about revealing a certain identity of mine. Now, when I walk around campus, I don’t feel so paranoid and fearful. This whole initiative has helped create a sense of peace and comfort within me.”

In addition to students, professors have also seen a change in the university’s responsiveness. “The university has improved slowly over recent years in its programmatic, institutional responsiveness to the general concerns that many of us have had about issues of bias and diversity in our community,” Ortiz said, “Many of us hope that this year’s events will prove a watershed moment in that process.”

While Chessare has stepped down from his role as co-president this semester and is now the advocacy chair for Pride, working on transgender inclusiveness at Georgetown. Chitayat remains in charge of the club along with Jack Harrison (SFS ’09).

Although Georgetown has come under fire for planning an LGBTQ resource center, which is seen by some as contrary to its mission as a Catholic university, Chessare said that the two identities should be compatible. Chessare said that the resource center should not be a place of conflict for Georgetown’s Catholic identity, but rather one that complements it.

“I want a resource center where issues of religion and spiritually are just as important as sexuality and gender identity issues,” he said. “I think there’s a tendency for any LGBTQ issue to check religion at the door. That’s not helpful.”

Despite outside criticism from conservative Catholic groups calling the center contrary to Catholic teaching, Chessare, who says he is a practicing Catholic, said that Georgetown’s step of supporting the LGBTQ community has reflected a commitment to its Catholic mission.

“The university is now much more willing to say, ‘We’re a Jesuit university, and that’s why we need this,’” he said. “This is the first time my gay and Catholic identity make sense together.”