In the long running controversy regarding the Sexuality Statement in the Student Code of Conduct, Seaver College’s Student Government Association took a new step. On April 6th, SGA passed Resolution 11-S22, which would eliminate a portion of the statement on sexual morality from the Student Code of Conduct. The statement from the Code of Conduct that would be eliminated under this resolution reads as follows:
“Pepperdine University affirms that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between husband and wife. This view of sexuality and marriage is rooted in the Genesis account of creation and is maintained consistently throughout scripture.”
Under the new resolution, this portion of the Code of Conduct would be abrogated in its entirety. Based upon the resolution, it seems only this section would be removed and the rest of the statement on sexual conduct would remain. The entire statement, as well as Pepperdine’s response to questions regarding LGTBQ+ can be found here.
SGA members cited the sentiments of Pepperdine students who identify as LGTBQ+ in their reasoning for passing the resolution. Lauren Miles, who conducted the study cited in the resolution, testified in the SGA hearing that the sample size was 40 Seaver Students according to Beacon reporter Mason Dees who was present. Neither this sample size, nor the study were made available within the public SGA resolution. Of the 40 survey respondents, 85% responded favorably to eliminating this university statement.
Neither Miles nor SGA President Chase Johnson, nor other members of SGA responded to requests to comment on Resolution 11-S22. The resolution passed with 80% of the SGA votes; 12 were in favor, 2 opposed, and 1 abstained.
The resolution lists perspectives on LGTBQ+ issues and on the statement in the student Code of Conduct. One student who spoke to SGA on condition of anonymity claimed that the university’s position “‘directly incites devaluation of those within it through its rejection of a non-heterosexual lifestyle.’” Another anonymous student believes that the Code of Conduct statement “‘sets a precedent for hate and harassment against LGTBQ+ students.’” The student says, “‘since the University doesn’t approve of your existence, then it excuses the awful behavior of people against you.’” Another anonymous student said in the resolution, “‘The presence of this statement has heavily impacted my time at Pepperdine. It has erased my own identity and continues to invalidate the identities and values of many students in that community.”
According to proponents of the resolution, in addition to current students who disagree with the university’s stance on sexuality, there are at least a few prospective undergraduates who were dissuaded from attending because of the Code of Conduct. “I met with one student who was offered a spot as a Regents Scholar but was contemplating turning it down because this statement felt hostile and made him feel like there will never be a place for him on campus,” Hope Lockwood, a junior at Seaver, informed SGA.
Not all students agreed with resolution 11-S22. A Seaver senior, who spoke to the Beacon on condition of anonymity, said, “One ought to pause and reflect in the face of a universal witness to the impermissibility of same sex relations from the Fathers of the early church and local or ecumenical synods. Why would those Christians reject same sex relations if this is not in fact what the Scriptures teach? Given the Gospel’s call to denial of our own desires and faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ, I think we need some better justification than causing people more comfort and ease.”
Besides students, a number of Pepperdine’s faculty also disapprove of 11-S22. When asked for comment, Dr. Yuengert responded:
“The resolution focuses on the two lines in the code that I believe are undoubtedly true–that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that Christian marriage is one man, one woman. It is entirely appropriate for a Christian university community to affirm this longstanding moral witness…In this SGA resolution there is nothing but contempt for Pepperdine’s affirmation of 2000 years of Christian teaching.”
According to Resolution 11-S22, there were professors who supported this resolution. Professors Kevin Iga and Bryant Crubaugh were “incredibly helpful in the facilitation” of conversations between SGA Council Directors and the University Diversity Council. Professor Angela Smith was also cited as offering “insight on how to best deliver on the success of this resolution in the future.”
Aside from opinions of members of the student body, the SGA argues for its resolution by alleging the university’s stance creates division among the student body and undermines the inclusive atmosphere Pepperdine seeks to create. SGA hopes by passing resolution 11-S22 to eliminate the university’s stance against homosexual and transgender lifestyles. Now that 11-S22 has passed, SGA will work with the University Diversity Council to make it official university policy. While an exact timeline of making resolution 11-S22 binding is unclear, the University Diversity Council would likely work to make it official Pepperdine policy as soon as possible.
Didn’t all prospective students have the ability to read all of Pepperdine’s student code of conduct before applying to the university? If they didn’t agree, why did they apply or attend? Hundreds of non-Christian universities don’t have statements about sexuality in their code of conducts. Why didn’t the students who disagree with Pepp’s code of conduct choose one of those universities instead?
The “ dry campus” status has caused many to not attend Pepperdine. Many people identify as “ drinkers” , socially responsible or otherwise and the code of conduct does not “ feel inclusive” to those students who often choose to go to a college without those policies vs. one that “ forces” other students to live un-affirmed in their personal stance on drinking alcohol. Is this the next code of conduct to be changed on the basis of inclusivity?
I have attended many churches who teach that premarital sex is not correct as a Christian value and sexuality is to be kept for marriage, I have never expected a church to affirm premarital sex or “ hooking up”, as Christianity is not designed to “make us feel good” but rather to examine our choices to see if they would be what’s right with Gods word via biblical scripture. We all make choices at times that may not be, but I’ve never expected my church to condone it or “ approve”or affirm those choices. Many people choose Pepperdine only because it’s a beautiful university by the ocean and seek to ignore/ erode its Christian roots. Seems Pepp is hell bent on ensuring it’s becoming just a picturesque campus choosen for location alone. NOONE should feel unsafe or unwelcome, but the school is being stripped of its Christian identity by those that find it uncomfortable. I expect the dry campus code of conduct will be next, then perhaps the health clinic will partner with planned parenthood to perform abortions, because SGA will determine it is archaic to keep those codes as well. This is what happens when you allow mob rule to influence the course of a university. You change and this changes your population: fewer Christians will pay the price to attend and choose Hillsdale or Liberty which won’t apologize for its Christian codes of conduct. EVERY STUDENT “ in a sexual relationship without benefit of marriage is breaking that code of Christian conduct and all students then who engage in premarital sex are “ hiding” their sexuality or “ not comfortable” with the code, for decades… but if the LGBTQ population is “ uncomfortable” then code must change to make them feel approved of. Problem is young people are focused way too much on “ identifying” by their sexuality alone, as if that’s the most important piece of who they are. That the focus at Pepp should be OFF of sexuality generally was just unbearable, so Pepp yields. Convocation will be next. Then I expect we will see drag queen performances at the theatre next, cause SGA will determine THAT affirmation is also required to be a welcoming university.
What exactly is the precedent here if the sexual ethics statement is actually removed? Should the university cease its association with Church of Christ to make itself “less hostile” to students of other Christian denominations? Should the university cease all references to Christ to make the campus “more welcoming” to nonChristian students? Should the university stop teaching all non-language courses primarily in English to make students who do not speak English as a first language feel less “intimidated?”
If not, why is the sexual behavior of students of some special importance? Why would students feel ashamed about how they sexually behave at Pepperdine if they’re not ashamed about not being Church of Christ or not being Christian or not speaking English as a first language at Pepperdine?