2007-2013
The Roots of Haven: Soul Force and the 2007 Equality Ride
On April 16, 2007, a group of LGBTQ+ Christian activists came to Seattle Pacific University with the expressed intention of protesting the university’s homophobic Statement on Human Sexuality and student lifestyle policies and promoting open and honest conversations about human sexuality on campus. The group—Soul Force— was founded by Mel White, a man who used to be a speechwriter for prominent conservative American evangelicals before he revealed that he was gay. Soul Force sponsored several “Equality Rides” between 2006 and 2007 that were modeled after and inspired by the Freedom Rides of the 1960s. In a phone interview with Falcon writers, Equality Rider Brandon Kneefel shared the group’s vision for their visit:
"We're a nonviolent, interfaith group that works to establish dialogue in the way Martin
Luther King Jr. and Gandhi did…We're not protesters. We're not here to get people's attention. We're here to foster dialogue and to create a space for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. ​​It has been tricky to get a balance of opinions out there. We are coming as outsiders trying to share a message. We are trying to find the best way for conversation to be conducted. There have been plenty of schools that have not welcomed us. Sometimes they welcome us, sometimes they don’t. We just try to take it one day at a time."
Equality Riders notified Seattle Pacific University administration of their visit in advance. A series of faculty- and Equality Rider-led panels and discussions were planned. The campus responses were varied.
Administration decided that they would not attempt to block the Equality Riders the way other universities had or arrest them for trespassing; however, this decision did not come from a place of affirmation or genuine desire for conversation. SPU President and the Vice President of Academic Affairs, at the time actively opposed student and faculty-led attempts to encourage affirming student care actions or theological conversations. A Sociology faculty member shared how perilous it could get on campus, as the Sociology department was incredibly active in supporting campus groups like Sophia, the feminist student club, and the early leaders of Haven. Faculty activism tended to draw a lot of unwanted attention from senior leadership at SPU.
​
Upper-level administration were not interested in fostering continuing conversations on campus; however, Equality Ride’s modus operandi did not leave room for university administration to give permission. They notified campuses as a courtesy, and fully intended to show up either way. This led to several arrests when they visited the University of Notre Dame and Brigham Young University.
"Equality Ride and other groups who discriminate against and outright attack Christians should not be invited to the SPU community. I think they come to attack our faith"
The SPU President hosted a question and answer forum a week before the Equality Riders were due to arrive. At the forum, and in subsequent Falcon writings, a variety of student responses are reflected. At the forum, a gay SPU student criticized the school’s homophobic lifestyle expectations and Statement on Human Sexuality, calling the discrimination against LGBTQ people in the name of Christianity Pharisaic. Christian Shields, another student at the forum, protested at the forum and allegedly actually thumped his Bible, proclaiming that queer people had no place in the SPU community because they were “abominations.”
In a letter to the editor a week later, that student, Christian Shields, criticized the Falcon, claiming they misquoted him:
“[Homosexuals] are God’s creations just as you and I. Their actions, however, are abysmal. Equality Ride and other groups who discriminate against and outright attack Christians should not be invited to the SPU community. I think they come to attack our faith and they have no intention of listening to what we have to say. If this group were simply a group of homosexuals and not a group claiming to be both fully gay and fully Christian I would have little problem with them."
Student responses, much like administrative and faculty responses to the imminent Equality Ride visit, were varied. Where students like Shields and others reflected in the Falcon’s opinion pages criticized the Equality Riders and opposed their visit, others welcomed the opportunity for discussion and representation. 2004 alumnus Jonah Attebery wrote as a guest columnist in the Falcon a week before the Riders were due to arrive, celebrating and welcoming the chance for SPU to uphold their mission to “engage the culture.” Reflecting on his own experience at SPU, Attebery questioned whether SPU could really claim their allegiance to said mission: “While a student and peer advisor, the issue of homosexuality and faith was one in which I took particular interest, including the planning of a forum and discussion well-attended and well-received by much of the student body. To my disappointment, it was practically disowned by key members of the administration and faculty and the conversation came to an abrupt halt.” Attebery’s column criticized the president's handling of the preparations for Equality Ride’s visit and his statement that the planned discussion panels and conversation groups would be “a well-controlled time to communicate clearly our position on this issue.” The current SPU President did not intend for any policy changes to happen as a result of Equality Ride’s visit. Attebery questioned the sincerity of the schools “rhetoric of hospitality”, asking if the “hospitable invitation into grace-filled community exist[s] only for those whose exit from campus is imminent?”
"[Does] the hospitable invitation into grace-filled community exist only for those whose exit from campus is imminent?'"
Dr. Rob Wall, a theology professor at SPU, held his own forum the week before Equality Ride’s scheduled visit. The forum, “Human Sexuality of the Heart”, was intended to prepare students for the visit and discuss Wall’s interpretation of Scripture. While Wall affirmed that human sexuality is never chosen, he argued that “God’s preferential option is for heterosexuality.” Citing Genesis 1-2 and 1 Corinthians 6:11-20, Wall claimed that heterosexual relationships reflect the “complement of diverse persons made in the likeness of the holy trinity” and that only heterosexual relationships “embody our loyalty to Christ and his bodily achievement on the cross in cleansing us from sin.”
During the visit, Brandon Kneefel offered a different Christian perspective. Kneefel reflected on the Bible’s relative lack of comments on homosexuality, saying that “there are many types of relationships that God does not recognize explicitly in the Bible, but that the lack of representation does not mean that they are wrong. The reason gay and lesbian relationships weren’t mentioned in the Bible is because they were indifferent. These relationships weren’t bad or destructive.” Kneefel went on to express his own desire to create a family that reflects God’s vision for humanity, even though it would look a bit different for him than it would a heterosexual couple. “This is my identity and my identity makes up my family. To separate those two is almost impossible. All the goodness in my heart is around what type of family I can create.”
​
In the weeks leading up to and including Equality Ride’s visit, students living on campus were having conversations about LGBTQ+ inclusion in the church, many of them for the first time. Some student leaders reflected that their spaces were overwhelmingly positive and excited to receive the Equality Riders. Some RAs passed around sticky notes and asked their residents to write down their thoughts and feelings about the upcoming visit, later posting them up on the floor. For closeted students living in the dorms, this was a distressing time.
​
“I still remember some of them. Some of them said things like ‘Homosexuality is just as bad as alcoholism, or murder, or other sins.’ And everything you can think of, like all of these horrible messages that Christianity is unfortunately known for around homosexuality. It was really painful. People that I love, people that were close to me, people that were my closest friends were saying things that were horrible for me to hear, and still not knowing the answer and not knowing what I thought about my sexuality at the time.” -Kerri Gibbard-Kline, Class of 2008
​
“I remember meeting with one of the members from the Equality Ride, who was basically like, ‘We don't want you guys to be nice to us, like we're here to fuck shit up.’ And I was like, ‘Oh, okay.’ I remember feeling complicated. Very much like ‘Can't we just say that this isn't okay, but still love people?’ I very much felt like hate the sin love the sinner was like, the out for me. Honestly looking back on it, I wonder if I thought some of the folks who were part of Equality Ride were hot and was like, ‘Don't! That doesn't mean anything!’ I think I just remember feeling heavy, and wanting there to be some sort of Kumbaya. I think I mostly just felt like ‘Come on, guys. Can we just agree to disagree and love each other?’”
-Anonymous student, Class of 2008
​
“Legend has it that it was the boys that did this, but a bunch of people wrote really homophobic shit on the road and on the sidewalks so that when Equality Ride showed up they wouldn’t feel welcome.”
-Anonymous student, Class of 2010
For one student, Equality Ride’s visit was inspiring:
“The whole experience was amazing. One of my professors in the English department I'll never forget. Equality Ride was holding a prayer gathering at one point, and he said, ‘You know what, I've let class out early once in my career, but I think it's very important that we all go be with these people, what they're doing is important.’ And that just meant so much to me. The whole experience was amazing, of course. They brought a lot of good dialogue to campus. And interacting with those people that were on the Equality Ride, um, they had their shit together, you know? They had the answers that we were all looking for. And they brought a lot of us out of the woodwork. So then there was suddenly this community whereas we had all been hiding before, and suddenly we were like, ‘Oh, you? You agree with what they're doing? Oh, okay!’ and then we had this whole thing going.” -Anonymous student, Class of 2008
​
After Equality Ride’s SPU stop was over, the student requested to join them. The next stop on their tour, Northwest Nazarene University in Idaho, held a lot of significance for the student as she had originally attended the school before transferring to SPU:
​
“A lot of my friends went there, it was basically the extension of my Christian high school. And I just felt ready to talk to people that I had known growing up. And the local newspaper wrote about it, and that’s how I came out to my brother. He saw that I was gay in the paper and was like, ‘What?!’ (laughs) He was a conservative dude, I was always scared to talk to him about that. But it turns out he was very welcoming and okay with it.”
Equality Ride’s 2007 visit to Seattle Pacific University was a catalytic moment for the university’s queer community. Equality Rider Amy Brainer-Medellin commented that SPU needed a space where queer students were “not merely tolerated, but celebrated.” One student took this message to heart.
After the Equality Riders departed, Kerri Gibbard-Kline started a Facebook group for SPU’s first Gay-Straight Alliance that had over one hundred members within the first day, and an inaugural meeting was planned for April 29th, 2007. This was the beginning of the group that would become Haven, and the start of a six-year-long fight against the administration for official approval.
Haven's Fight for Recognition
In April and May of 2007, SPU’s newly-formed Gay-Straight Alliance—led by student Kerri-Gibbard— applied to be an official student club from ASSP. By the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the group had met three times since its formation and had planned a celebratory barbecue to cap off the year. Their first meeting saw almost fifty attendees, and the Facebook page had 247 members by the end of the year. Although the GSA had a rush of initial support from students and received the greenlight from ASSP on May 29th, 2007, it was only a few days later that ASSP revoked their approval due to the administration’s concerns over the GSA’s club constitution. The group was told that they needed to consult with administration and faculty from the Theology department and rewrite their club constitution, the document that outlines the club’s goals and intended purpose. The group was suspended, and the GSA entered the 2007-2008 academic year without official club status.
​
In fall 2007, GSA leaders Kent Rodgers, Chris Matsuo, and Beth Van Dam attempted to rewrite the group’s constitution in order to resubmit for ASSP approval. According to Van Dam, “It was unclear what the administration wanted. But it was important that the constitution lined up with the signature commitments of SPU.” The revised club constitution affirmed the group’s dedication to serving the LGBTQ+ community on campus:
“We are committed to lifting the taboo regarding people of alternative sexualities. We take our place in the community by sharing life with others and serving in a way to engage the culture and change the world…We believe in loving people regardless of stance or orientation. We are dedicated to examining stereotypes and raising awareness of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) community as individuals.”
Over the course of the 2007-2008 academic year, student leaders of the GSA—renamed ‘Haven’ after one of the members of Equality Ride—were dragged through hoop after hoop to justify the existence of their club. Club leaders met with the administration they were required to meet with frequently, and rewrote their constitution before reapplying at the beginning of winter quarter 2008; however, they were still denied club status as administration kept claiming confusion over Haven’s purpose and intentions. In a Falcon article on the tug-of-war over Haven’s application, an administrator said they “[thought that] [Haven] has done a wonderful and amazing job. What I am not sure about is defining the purpose of the club. I cannot tell you if they have narrowly defined that activity.” Haven’s Ministry Coordinator at the time, Kelsey Hudson, explained to the Falcon that Haven’s purpose was to provide support and safety to a marginalized community on campus, and that their purpose was clearly defined in their club constitution. Despite their efforts to collaborate with administration, Haven’s application was denied and deferred once again. On February 26, 2008, Haven leaders received an email from the Committee for Student Clubs Chair and VP of Campus Activities Kelly Hicks informing them that CSC could neither approve nor deny their application “due to CSC’s uncertainty of the proposal’s relationship to SPU’s institutional values and Lifestyle Expectations.” Haven left winter quarter still with no resolution to their goals, and even more frustration.
​
In May 2008, administration officials informed Haven that they had been denied official club status yet again, claiming that the club would “not be relevant to enough students.” As Haven leader Beth Van Dam told the Falcon, the university stuck to their claim that Haven was an advocacy group, even though the club’s constitution made no mention of advocacy and was clear that the group’s sole purpose was to support LGBTQ+ students on campus. Hundreds of students and 33 tenured faculty members—one third of the tenured faculty at the time—signed a petition in support of Haven. Haven’s advisor and Sociology Professor Kevin Neuhouser told the Falcon that he appreciated other faculty showing their support, even if they did not necessarily agree with Haven’s identity as an LGBTQ+ group. “[Haven] has not pushed any particular beliefs and has not advocated change for SPU’s policy. To be grace-filled, you have to have a place where people can talk without being afraid that they are going to be attacked and hurt…I’ve seen [Haven] enter into conversations with people they don’t agree with. They have exemplified how to hold a conversation about a difficult topic.” A university cannot advocate their support for open dialogue while simultaneously controlling who gets a seat at the table, what they get to say, and how they get to say it.
"A university cannot advocate their support for open dialogue while simultaneously controlling who gets a seat at the table, what they get to say, and how they get to say it."
While many students and faculty supported Haven’s continuing fight with administration, others expressed their support for the university. One student, Rachel Krebs, hung a sign in her dorm room window that said “No Haven Club”, and told the Falcon she didn’t believe school funds should go towards the group.
On April 25, 2008 to commemorate the National Day of Silence, Haven put together a public exhibit to educate the campus on anti-gay violence, prejudice, and bigotry. Participants took a vow of silence for the day as a way to encourage people to consider the forceful silencing of queer voices, then gathered in Martin Square. At noon, several unknown students went to the top floor of Gwinn Commons and threw water balloons down into the square, soaking Haven members and other supportive students, ruining the exhibit.
Bekah Grim, an opinions writer for The Falcon, reflected on the cruel irony of the water ballooning incident:
“Is this how SPU students treat individuals looking to begin dialogue, debunk stereotypes and enact reconciliation? If this is the case, then we better tell John Perkins to bring a raincoat next time he visits our campus…We are too hung up on whether homosexuality is sinful or permissible and who falls on which side of the debate. We are so entangled on rightness and wrongness that we forget to ask the most important question: how are we to treat each other?...Whether we love homosexuals and treat them with respect or not should not depend on what we think of their actions. Loving your neighbor is not contingent on your neighbor’s yard or your neighbor’s decisions; loving your neighbor relies on Christ’s commandment that says we are to simply love one another. Some Christians will “love” homosexuals in the hopes of changing them, or “bringing them home from the dark side”...This is a dastardly concept of love. It suggests, “I love you not for who you are, but for who I think you should be.” You do not love a person when you say this; rather you love an ideal of how you think they should act. It is time we start loving people unconditionally. Many times in Christian circles, it is ‘the homosexuals this” and “the homosexuals that.” Homosexuals are presented as a ghostly sociological group, a theoretical possibility, the nightlife scene in Capitol Hill, anything but what they are: people. It is easy to make sweeping judgements when we allow ourselves to think of homosexuals as a group concept, rather than as individuals…By not allowing Haven to be an official campus club, SPU is keeping homosexuals a foreign, detached concept, which continues their marginalization in the Christian community. This marginalization allows us to form opinions about “them” based on what we’ve heard, and not on whom we have actually met. It discourages openness and allows stereotypes about homosexuals to blaze on like a forest fire across campus.”
The year following Equality Ride’s visit was full of tedious trials for Haven. Student leaders were pulled into meeting after meeting with the admin and faculty they were requested to, given task after task, thrown question after question about their purpose, and when the 2007-2008 academic year ended they were still left without official status.
"Some Christians will 'love' homosexuals in the hopes of changing them, ...This is a dastardly concept of love. It suggests, “I love you not for who you are, but for who I think you should be.”
To commemorate the one year anniversary, Haven put together a forum in late May 2008 to talk about the ways SPU had grown in its views and stances on homosexuality and where the conversation should still be taken. Panelists included SPU alumni and current students. Haven leader Beth Van Dam organized the event, and told the Falcon that the goal of the forum was to expose SPU students to many different views and experiences with homosexuality. By the end of the spring term in 2008, Haven still had no official recognition or resolution. Administration gave them permission to meet on campus unofficially as a “student cadre” that could join campus events and hold weekly meetings, but could not access the ASSP student club funds for regular or special expenses.
April, 2009: Denial of Communion
In April 2009, Haven (in collaboration with several other social justice and ministry student groups) organized another demonstration for the National Day of Silence. Like the commemoration in 2008, the group erected an art piece in Martin Square and many members took an eighteen-hour vow of silence. Unlike the previous year, however, this time administration interfered. Organizers had planned a Communion service and invited local pastor Karen Ward to conduct it as a sort of closing ceremony for the Day of Silence, giving participants the opportunity to reflect on the day. When upper administration found out about the planned ceremony, they (along with the VPAA, and the University President) interfered with Ward’s visit. While the Falcon’s report on the 2009 Day of Silence does not specify exactly why administration interfered with Ward’s visit and planned Communion, it is implied that there was an issue over whether or not Ward could serve wine on SPU’s dry campus. Serving grape juice instead was outside of Ward’s religious tradition, and so she informed student organizers that she could no longer perform the Communion service. Professor Kevin Neuhouser, Haven’s advisor, offered his services, but administration shut him down.
​
When interviewed by the Falcon, student leaders reflected on the various campus responses they received as organizers of the Day of Silence commemoration. grant ANDROS, Haven president at the time, reported one particular incident. While they were posted in front of Gwinn Commons handing out ribbons to students in recognition of the Day of Silence, one student confronted ANDROS about the duct tape she wore over her mouth and her refusal to remove it. On the tape, ANDROS had written out the phrase “Fag is a mean word”, and in explanation of her actions pointed the student towards the Square. The student reportedly said that he “thought it was a pretty great word” and refused ANDROS’s ribbon.
​
While students initially chose not to challenge administration’s denial of Communion in an effort not to take away from the true meaning of the day, they felt frustrated at the continued silencing of queer students. In response, several weeks later in May 2009, student organizers from multiple different campus groups organized an event called “They Will Know We Are Christians by Our Love” where Communion was offered to students gathered in Martin Square. An SPU theology professor, Priscilla Pope-Levison, led the services. This event was not organized as a protest, political demonstration, or direct challenge to the SPU administration. Student leader Nate Berends commented that “This event was more a response of Christians to what we thought was an unjust way of treating our brothers and sisters. We understood that we had an opportunity to stand up as citizens of the community and say ‘Jesus calls us to something better.’”
If the 2007-2008 school year was characterized by bureaucratic struggle and “confusion” over Haven’s purpose, the 2008-2009 school year saw Haven fighting against administrations assumption that a queer student club would necessarily be an activist group that would challenge SPU administration instead of serving a community. 2009 was also the year that administration revoked their previous permission to allow Haven to meet on campus as an unofficial student group, and so the 2009-2010 school year began with a huge set back and tension between student leaders and administration. Leaders were becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of clarity and commitment from administration, remarking that Haven’s mission as a safe place for SPU’s queer community was nearly impossible with the heightened level of administrative oversight and interference. Administration took issue specifically with an award Haven received in 2007, claiming it was evidence that Haven was advocating for a homosexual lifestyle in direct opposition to SPU’s Statement on Human Sexuality.
In April 2010, Haven organized another commemoration of the Day of Silence. Again, students attended classes with duct tape over their mouths. Unlike the previous year, this time, administration and the school president gave Haven permission to organize the event. To avoid the previous year’s mess and controversy surrounding Communion, student organizers decided to host a foot-washing in Weter during the “Breaking the Silence” closing session.
Cat Gipe, a Haven leader, reflected on the foot-washing to Falcon reporters: “[Ritual foot-washing] is a more humbling experience that requires interaction of participants. Foot washing was a better choice for this event, we thought, because we are showing the need for acceptance of all of God’s children and all SPU students, faculty, and staff.”
Professor Neuhouser also spoke on the significance that ritual foot-washing held for him, saying that “Foot washing is a statement of love and humility. It is a statement of being clean. You are not exiled, you are in this community. It shows we want to love one another.”
“Foot washing is a statement of love and humility. It is a statement of being clean. You are not exiled, you are in this community. It shows we want to love one another.”
On January 25, 2011, Haven leaders met with the same administration to discuss the still-unofficial status of their club. For nearly four years, student leaders had dutifully attended meetings with the same administration members, specific faculty members, and the University president. The student leaders brought studies on the harmful effects institutional homophobia and exclusion had on vulnerable students’ mental health. They drafted, revised, and rewrote their club constitution. They sent emails. They met in-person. They came to the table, participated in conversation, and gave grace even when they were denied. Administration delivered four words in response to their efforts: “Haven no longer exists.” In that January meeting, administration revoked all permission for Haven to meet on campus, including the room in Demaray they had given them access to in October 2010, and declared that the discussion on the club’s official status was permanently closed—they would not reconsider. Administration explained to Haven’s leaders that their final straw was the Pastor Panel that Haven hosted on November 7, 2010, arguing that the organizers only selected affirming pastors to sit on the panel, so the conservative voice—SPU’s voice—was not represented; therefore, they doubted that Haven could ever be a group that voluntarily aligned itself with and agreed fully to SPU’s mission statement and core values.
​
The community reaction to this decision was near explosive. Students, staff, and faculty wrote letters to the University President, articles about SPU’s decision appeared in Seattle Gay News, the Stranger, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and Slog. Haven’s advisor, Dr. Neuhouser, remarked on how shocking administration’s decision was:
“And I said ‘Seriously?’ Because there was no way that they could make us not exist. And up till that point, even though they didn't want us to meet on campus, they had always asked us for a schedule of our-what we were planning on doing, our meetings and events, and which we had always done so that they were aware of what was coming up. And I said, ‘So if Haven no longer exists, does that mean we no longer have to tell you what we're doing?’ And they realized that they had painted themselves into a corner that they couldn't get out of. So again, this erupted into a public confrontation with the administration. And this time, over 100 faculty signed a letter of support for Haven and paid for it to appear in the Falcon. There was also sort of—it began to draw attention from local media, like the Stranger, and alumni began to put pressure on the university. And so within a month, the administration was forced to back off and gave Haven the right to meet on campus again.”
​
Administration defended the decision, pointing to an LGBTQ advisory group that had formed in 2010 to serve as a sounding board for concerns about Haven and to oversee campus issues related to human sexuality as proof that SPU was open to conversations about queer sexuality and inclusion. In February, Haven was invited to a meeting of the Human Sexuality Advisory Group. It is unclear what the purpose of this meeting was, but a theology professor told the Falcon his plan to “ask the Human Sexuality Advisory Group to move us forward as we seek to find safe and open space for conversation regarding all of human sexuality.”
In March, after more conversations and meetings with the HSAG, Haven members and supporters met in Demaray 150 to hear a declaration from Haven leaders. Joy Bethune, Becky Jennings, Aaron Roberts, and Haven Wilvich delivered a short, simple message to 130 students, staff and faculty that had supported Haven’s efforts since 2007: “Haven becomes a formal group with full rights to reserve space and advertise on campus.” The announcement was met with cheering and elation, although it was laced with hesitation for many. To be clear, this was not official club status. Administration only agreed to allow Haven to advertise and reserve spaces for meetings on campus. They were still not an official ASSP student club, and did not receive any funding from the university.
In April 2011, Haven geared up for another observation of the National Day of Silence. They passed the word around, organized student involvement, communicated the goal and purpose of the day to professors. For eight and a half hours, Haven Wilvich braved the Seattle rain in Martin Square, sitting in meditative silence with her mouth taped closed. Co-leader Aaron Roberts closed his mouth with a piece of tape that read “Wondering if it is safe to hold my boyfriend’s hand.” He told the Falcon about his experience, reflecting on how positive it was. At one point during the day, he was approached by a woman who was interested to read what his tape said. When she did, she paused for a moment, then said that “if it was up to her, he would never have to worry about his safety.” Compared to the responses participants received in 2009, 2011 marked a genuine shift in campus attitudes towards the Haven club. They were one step closer to official club status, something they had spent years fighting for, and they were influencing the student body’s opinion. It seemed that awareness and empathy was growing.
"Over 100 faculty signed a letter of support for Haven"
2011: Compromise
On Sunday, September 25, 2011, SPU hosted Involve-O-Rama, the annual club fair for new students to learn about the resources available to them on campus. All official student clubs were invited to come connect with new students and advertise their mission and services. Haven was denied a table. When Haven leaders Hope Estes, Maile Gove, and alumnus Haven Wilvich came to Involve-O-Rama with brochures and “Ask Me About Haven” t-shirts, they were asked to leave. They were never given a concrete reason for their prohibition. Hope Estes told the Falcon that “The most concrete reason I got for our denial was that Haven hadn’t been allowed at Involve-O-Rama before, but we thought a lot had changed since previous years.” The Haven club had been told to communicate with administration about tabling at Involve-O-Rama, but for unknown reasons, their requests were denied. Although Haven as a club had made significant progress in their fight for official status, SPU continued to resist student attempts to make the university more affirming and inclusive.
​
Between administration’s unofficial recognition of Haven in 2011 and President Dan Martin’s granting of official ASSP club status in 2013, one of the main points of contention for SPU’s administration continued to be Haven’s identity. Although no part of being an LGBTQ+ student group requires that group to be an activist group, administration continued to believe that Haven’s existence was a challenge to the university’s identity, despite the counterarguments from Haven leaders over the years. When it came time for Haven’s club status to be affirmed in the fall of 2013, administration still insisted that they needed a promise that the club was not going to be an official, organized attempt to challenge the university. In exchange for official ASSP club status, Haven leaders had to write into the club constitution that the group recognized the University’s Statement on Human Sexuality and affirmed its legitimacy, something no other student club had to do at the time or since then.
In exchange for official ASSP club status, Haven leaders had to write into the club constitution that the group recognized the University’s Statement on Human Sexuality and affirmed its legitimacy, something no other student club had to do at the time or since then.
In an interview with Adam Hutchinson, one of Haven’s leaders during his time at SPU between 2013 and 2015, Hutchinson described the various influences on Haven and how the club’s identity shifted as a result:
“Part of the reason why we didn't call Haven an activist group was because it was really supposed to be a discussion group at [that] point. And we really oriented ourselves around being a discussion group because like, is SPU really going to stop discussions? And I think the administration response was, ‘Oh, you're right. We're not going to stop discussions on these issues.’ So they didn't really have ground to stand on anymore. But the one sticking point before all this happened was the statement on human sexuality, which had been a sticking point the whole time. And so the administration set a line in the sand and said Haven had to affirm the Statements on Human Sexuality, which no other club had to do at SPU, so that already felt, you know, very weird. And so we weren't going to do that. But then we sat down and we said, ‘Can we get to a place where we recognize where the university is coming from and the university recognizes where Haven’s coming from, and we're okay with disagreements? And we can let that come out in discussions by this group officially existing.’ And so that's eventually where we landed…And so we said, okay, let's do this. So we submitted that new constitution with that line in it for Haven. And it got approved, it went through the hoops, it got approved. Very underwhelming, almost, a little email that said we were approved as a club, we had a little celebration, someone made a rainbow cake, a bunch of faculty came, a bunch of alumni came, all of us cried, it was a very happy moment.”
​
For Adam Hutchinson and the other Haven leaders in 2013, including a line in their club constitution affirming SPU’s Statement on Human Sexuality and establishing Haven’s identity as a discussion group was a necessary compromise to ensure the survival of the club. If Haven was an official club, they thought, if they allowed the University this one line in their constitution, they thought that they could gain a bit of ground for queer students. Haven leaders thought that if they framed Haven as a discussion group, it would force administration to be more open to conversations about human sexuality and give Haven the freedom to serve their community. And Haven gaining official recognition made it one of the first student clubs to gain official status at a Christian college in the United State, which was a big deal in the evangelical university world. Once Haven gained official approval, Hutchinson received dozens of emails from other student leaders at other Christian colleges across the country asking him how Haven managed to get approved and what practices they could implement at their schools. But this compromise was never meant to be permanent. When Hutchinson and his team passed the baton off to the next batch of leaders, he told them as such.