1990-2007
1990-2007
The Controversy Begins: Mary Fry, Michael Roe, and HSC 2035
In 1969, a maternity nurse named Mary Fry started teaching a course on reproductive and maternity nursing at Seattle Pacific University. As she was teaching her courses, she realized just how little her nursing students actually knew about human sexuality. Sex and sexuality was still such a taboo topic that many of them couldn’t look Fry in the eyes and name anatomy parts without blushing. Realizing that her course needed to be expanded, Fry consulted with Michael Roe, a psychology professor at SPU, and another biology professor to develop a new course on human sexuality. The course covered several typical nursing subjects, such as anatomy and physiology of the reproductive system, psychosexual growth and development, and contraception, but also included a unit on variations in human sexuality. The course had a week-long unit on homosexuality itself, wherein Fry and her co-teachers attempted to mitigate the cultural and medical misinformation many of the nursing students were bringing into their studies. Fry would bring guest speakers into the class, several of them gay men from the Metropolitan Community Church. For a while, Fry attempted to include perspectives from the anti-gay evangelical community, but realized that her students were not using the opportunity to challenge their own beliefs, but instead were quickly polarizing to the side they were already on. Eventually, the course became highly recommended for not just nursing students, but also theology and education students.
"Sex and sexuality was still such a taboo topic that many of them couldn’t look Fry in the eyes and name anatomy parts without blushing."
In spring 1990, when Mary Fry was on leave and the course was mainly taught by Michael Roe, the course was protested by one student who took issue specifically with the textbook and the way the course approached human sexuality. While not actually enrolled in the course, the student wrote and distributed a letter to students and the Board of Trustees, and in it claimed that the course taught “explicit and grossly obscene material.” He argued that the textbook should be removed from the curriculum in order to preserve SPU’s “Christian standard of morality in its instruction.” Over the summer before the 1990-1991 school year, the VP of student affairs, conducted an inquiry into the course based on student's complaints and concerns. After reviewing the course materials and consulting with both Michael Roe and students who had taken the class, the VP concluded that the course was “integral to [SPU’s] curriculum , [was] well taught, and [would] be continued to be offered.” The student's response was to further criticize the university and their response to his concerns about the course. He claimed that “The class was intended to teach human sexuality in a Christian environment and the perspective was exactly opposite. I think the handling by the University has been to cover up the issue rather than to solve it.” The student argued that the ideal situation would have been for SPU to form a committee to review the course and decide whether its material upheld the University’s Christian standards. The VP of student affairs argued that the course did not force students to accept one viewpoint or another, and that it was a solid, academic, and appropriate course for SPU.
​
That particular student was not the only one to take issue with the course. In the fall of 1990, another student audited the course while Mary Fry was still on leave. During his audit, this student compiled course materials, texts, and notes from classes into what is now known as the “Black Book.” This book detailed the students concerns about the class, but unlike the original letter from the first student, was never publicly distributed to students or faculty. It was, however, made available to a few Board members in 1992 when Michael Roe was up for tenure, and caused significant delay in his tenure proceedings.
Mary Fry returned from leave after the fall 1990 quarter. During the spring 1991 quarter, a woman—who was not a regular student at SPU—enrolled in Fry’s class “in order to report on its activities to outside groups,” including Board of Trustees members. A board member confirmed that he was contacted by the student, but had encouraged her to go through the proper channels to lodge a complaint. Fry was not made aware of the student’s true intentions until halfway through the quarter when the student wrote a letter of complaint to the administration. The following fall quarter on September 18th 1991, a faculty senate meeting took place to discuss the course and the anonymous students’ complaints. Even though the published meeting minutes reveal that members present seemed to agree that they did not condone the student’s unorthodox approach to lodging a complaint against Fry’s course, within a few days of the faculty senate meeting the course was cancelled for the quarter.
"... a woman—who was not a regular student at SPU—enrolled in Fry’s class 'in order to report on its activities to outside groups,'"
A committee was created in October of 1991 to assess the issue. Statements collected from multiple board members and members of SPU’s administration shed light on the different stances taken by members of the University. Only one board member was willing to go on record, the one who the students had contacted. They said, according to the Falcon, claimed that the class’ teachings on homosexuality were one reason for its postponement, explaining, “When you have…Christians practicing homosexuality in the class…it runs contrary to evangelical tradition….not many Christians believe there can be practicing Christian homosexuals”. The Falcon asked the VP to respond to this; he said he “didn’t want to imply that the issue of homosexuality was a major part of the controversy.” A board chairman is quoted saying “They felt that they did not have an instructor that they were confident could present the course material and live within the appropriateness of the religious principles that SPU adheres to”. The Falcon says the President indicated that “this was not a judgment against a faculty member”. A Falcon Editorial in the same issue wrote that “the issue was in regard to homosexual guest speakers who claimed to be Christians. The controversy was whether or not homosexuals could be Christians” (Editorial Board). They cited the board member as the source of this information. Another board member is quoted as saying that “Academic freedom stops if there is a breaching of religious values or the moral values that are dictated by the owners of the university, in this case which is the Free Methodist Church….Academic freedom is fine as long as it does not impinge upon the religious beliefs or moral values that the school holds dear…then academic freedom takes second place.”
​
Mary Fry filed a grievance for the cancellation in November 1991, claiming that she had taught the course for 15 years without any issues or concerns about Christian standards and that there were no legitimate grounds to cancel the course. According to her own testimony, Fry was told that she “wasn’t orthodox enough” in the way she taught her course, the implication being that she—and the course—were too liberal and not appropriate for SPU’s Christian standards. Fry expressed her frustrations at these ambiguous standards and the vague arguments the committee gave her:
"I never figured out what orthodox meant, other than I had to believe what was in and only preach what was in the Free Methodist handbook."
“[The VP of student affairs] would never put into words on what I wasn’t orthodox about. I mean literally, literally edged around it. And when I asked for clarification I never got it. I never figured out what orthodox meant, other than I had to believe what was in and only preach what was in the Free Methodist handbook. But it wasn’t clear. And it was innuendoed that it was because I was, as the saying goes, soft on gays. I remember feeling pretty angry about it, I felt devalued, so to speak. I felt that I had a right to defend what I had been doing all along, that students grew and benefited from it and absolutely needed this information to become healthy people in their own lives. And so I think that drove me to stand my ground more than anything else.”
Fry was supported by other faculty members. After she filed her grievance, eighty-eight faculty members sent a “statement of concern” to the administration, criticizing the cancellation of the course on Human Sexuality: “We as Seattle Pacific University faculty wish to declare…our concern that the principle of academic freedom is being jeopardized by the administrative handling of criticism concerning HSC 2035…[the postponement is] further eroding the fragile and essential fabric of faculty trust which is the foundation of a viable university.” This outpouring of support and argument for academic freedom did not affect Dunn’s decision, and the course was not resumed for fall quarter.
The VP of student affairs committee met once every three weeks throughout the fall 1991 quarter, but by winter 1992, the course on human sexuality was still absent from the schedule for spring. When the Falcon interviewed the VP about the committee and the status of the Human Sexuality Course, the VP revealed that he wanted the committee to develop a “[general] statement of human sexuality matters at the University…[looking at human sexuality from a] theological perspective” before the class would be reinstated. This statement would be an evangelical guideline for how sexuality would be presented in all courses at SPU. Many concerns were raised over the existence of a statement on human sexuality and how it could cripple academic freedom. In another Falcon article, [name unknown] expressed their concerns clearly:
“The incorporation of such a document will open the door for censorship. It could take away a professor’s freedom to teach the way he or she wants to, and effectively puts limits on academic freedom. Much great literature contains references to sexuality. Which books would suddenly not be allowed in English classes? What plays would not be allowed in the theatre department? If such a document were adopted by the university, who would enforce it? What punishments would be levied if professors were to break this stipulation? [SPU is] a university known for its academia, let’s not damage it with the first seeds of censorship.”
Amidst the debates on academic freedom versus religious privilege, Michael Roe’s tenure hearings were postponed from November 1991 to February 1992 due to the controversies surrounding the Human Sexuality class and the details one of the students provided to the Board in his black book. In January of 1992, a student forum was held to address issues related to budget, restructuring, and SPU’s future, and one of the topics discussed was the tenure of Michael Roe. On March 4 1992, the Falcon published that the Board of Trustees had granted tenure to Michael Roe. The VP of student affairs revealed in April that the human sexuality course would return for Spring Quarter in 1993 with the professor yet to be determined. He also shared that “the committee on human sexuality has not finished composing a statement of human sexuality concerns at the university” but that it was expected to be completed within “one or two more meetings.”
In October 1992, the VP confirmed that the issue with the Human Sexuality course had been settled, and it was still set to return in spring 1993. Roe would not return to co-teach with Fry, however, and the course would continue with Mary Fry and Dennis Guernsey, the Director of Counseling Programs, as co-teachers. Fry claimed that she did not intend to alter the course content, but Guernsey stated that there were “informal stipulations” that the course would have more “sensitivity in the area of teaching human sexuality.” The VP also stated that the new statement on human sexuality had been written by the committee and would be official by the end of fall 1992. According to him, the statement was “very general” and “[dealt] with the theology of sexuality as well as the pedagogy.” A published draft of the updated Faculty Handbook raised some concerns amongst staff and students surrounding the Handbook’s section on academic freedom.
The Handbook stated: “The faculty member is entitled to freedom in class-connected exposition of knowledge and is obligated to avoid introducing controversial content unrelated to the subject matter.” Concerns were raised about the vague wording of this obligation; people felt as though the statement allowed too much room for outside influences to act on professors and could impinge their abilities to freely teach the subject matter. “Controversial content” was also too broad and open-ended, and the Handbook made no specific mention of what kind of material would be out of bounds, leaving everything implied instead of clearly defined. That same Falcon article expressed frustration with the secrecy that had surrounded the Board of Trustees and the VP's committee’s decision making process during the deliberations of Fry’s course: “As a university that extols the virtues of a Christian community, we need to put our money where our mouth is. There must be greater face to face contact between board, faculty, and administration. Without it, the distrust will continue; this university will never become great; and any agreement between the members of this community will be superficial.”
"There must be greater face to face contact between board, faculty, and administration. Without it, the distrust will continue; this university will never become great; and any agreement between the members of this community will be superficial."
Once the course was reinstated for spring 1993, Mary Fry, along with Dennis Guernsey, continued to teach with no further issues or upset. In an interview, Fry shared some of her personal takeaways from the time she spent teaching and developing the course and how it affected her outlook. She said that the time she spent educating herself about homosexuality from a medical standpoint and from the personal, real lived experiences of the guest speakers she brough to class prepared her for when her own daughter came out to her: “I’ve looked back on that and thought, man. You know, if I hadn't had all this studying and understanding myself, I would have felt so shocked and different than I in fact did in terms of accepting her and who she was. And my only fear was how other people would treat her.”
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Triangle Cadre
In fall (year unknown—1994-1997), Susan Mullen started a “Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Triangle Cadre” at SPU to address the needs of sexual minorities. The group began as an informal student group but eventually involved the SPU Student Counseling and Health Center after a staff member suggestion. The SCHC wanted to provide a “supportive environment for people to talk about what they are struggling with…[that was] not therapy, because therapy sometimes invokes the idea of change….[the goal] is to provide support where people can feel free to talk about themselves.”The Director of the SCHC, Roy Barsness, expressed a willingness to form a students-only group, “feeling that issues of confidentiality were keeping students away because of faculty and staff presence.” Barsness was also quoted detailing the unique situation that LGBTQ+ students at SPU find themselves in: “Because this community can make statements about homosexuality being wrong, it could serve as a real challenge, the question ‘Can you be a Christian and be homosexual?’ There’s its own unique set of challenges—which is part of the reason for support groups. Anything that happens here is confidential. We don’t report lifestyle standard violations.”
Counseling center psychotherapist Kurt Johns also expressed his feelings on the necessity of an LGBTQ+ support group: “It seems so necessary for them to have a place here, where they are not going to be judged, where they can ask the questions.” Family therapist Cynthia Cooley elaborated on the importance of support groups like the Cadre: “Suicide is a big issue…Young adults are really conflicted about religious doctrine and their sexual orientation. It’s not unusual that young adults attempt suicide…or have severe depression. [If] there’s a place for them to share experiences, get support for what they’re struggling with and others who are also struggling and feel less alone…maybe a life could be saved.” Mullen also described her satisfaction with the formation of a support group: “I think it’s good. I think that the more we talk about the needs of sexual minority people…the more it will encourage people to reach out and understand others and feel healthy about who they are. As a university we don’t discriminate against who we admit. We shouldn’t discriminate against what services we provide.” She also explained that although her Cadre’s attendance was relatively small, she believed that there were probably more people who “would participate” but just “might not be ready yet.”