Report on Baylor University Grant Reversal and Its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Incident Summary

A report has emerged concerning Baylor University’s decision to return a grant valued at $643,401. The funds, provided by the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation, were allocated for research into LGBTQ+ inclusion within church communities. The university reversed its acceptance of the grant following public opposition, citing that the study’s objectives were in conflict with the institution’s established code on sexual ethics. This event presents a significant case study on the challenges of aligning institutional policy with global development objectives.

Analysis in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The decision by Baylor University has direct implications for several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those focused on equality, justice, and partnerships.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The primary objective of the proposed research was to address and understand the societal inequalities faced by LGBTQ+ individuals within faith-based organizations. The cancellation of this initiative impacts SDG 10 in the following ways:

• It halts a research project aimed at promoting the social and economic inclusion of a marginalized group, irrespective of sexual orientation.
• The action represents a setback in efforts to gather data that could inform policies and practices to reduce inequality within community institutions.
• It reinforces existing barriers to inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals in specific institutional settings, counteracting the goal of empowering and promoting the inclusion of all.

SDG 5: Gender Equality & SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The controversy highlights a tension between institutional doctrine and the principles of universal equality and inclusion, which are central to both SDG 5 and SDG 16.

• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): While often focused on women and girls, the broader principle of SDG 5 is to end all forms of discrimination. The university’s decision, based on a specific ethical code regarding sexuality, underscores the challenges in achieving full equality for individuals of all gender identities and sexual orientations.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The goal calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The conflict between the grant’s inclusive purpose and the university’s internal policy demonstrates a weakness in institutional frameworks to accommodate research that promotes social justice for all, thereby hindering the development of a fully inclusive institution.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The grant represented a multi-stakeholder partnership between a philanthropic foundation and an academic institution to advance a common social good. The breakdown of this collaboration illustrates a failure to sustain partnerships for sustainable development.

1. A partnership was established to leverage academic resources for achieving a social objective aligned with the SDGs.
2. Public and internal pressure caused the academic institution to withdraw from the partnership, citing a conflict of values.
3. The dissolution of this partnership demonstrates the vulnerability of collaborative efforts when faced with institutional resistance, ultimately impeding progress toward the goals.

Conclusion

The reversal of the grant by Baylor University serves as a critical example of the complex interplay between institutional policies, public opinion, and the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The incident undermines progress toward reducing inequalities (SDG 10), promoting gender equality (SDG 5), building strong, inclusive institutions (SDG 16), and fostering effective partnerships (SDG 17). It highlights the need for continued dialogue to reconcile traditional institutional frameworks with the global commitment to inclusion and equality for all people.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  This goal is relevant as it aims to end all forms of discrimination. The article’s focus on “LGBTQ+ inclusion” directly pertains to issues of equality and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The university’s conflict over the grant highlights the challenges in achieving equality for all gender identities within institutional settings.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is addressed through the article’s central theme of inclusion for a marginalized group. The rejection of a grant intended to “study LGBTQ+ inclusion” signifies a setback in efforts to reduce social inequalities and ensure the empowerment and inclusion of all people, irrespective of their “other status,” which includes sexual orientation.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is connected as it calls for inclusive and accountable institutions. The article discusses an institutional decision at Baylor University, influenced by its “stated sexual ethics” and “public outcry,” which resulted in a non-inclusive action. This raises questions about the responsiveness and inclusivity of the institution’s decision-making processes regarding minority groups.

Specific Targets Identified

1. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   • The article directly discusses the topic of “LGBTQ+ inclusion in churches.” The grant was specifically aimed at studying and potentially promoting this social inclusion. Baylor University’s decision to return the grant, citing its internal policies, demonstrates a direct challenge to achieving this target within its community.

2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

   • Baylor University’s “stated sexual ethics” code is presented as a policy that led to the rejection of the grant. This action can be seen as a practice that perpetuates an inequality of opportunity for LGBTQ+ individuals to be understood and included within the community, thereby failing to reduce inequalities of outcome.

3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   • The university’s decision-making process, which involved President Linda Livingstone and was influenced by “public outcry,” led to an outcome that was not inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community’s interests. The return of the grant shows a decision-making process that prioritized a specific ethical code over the promotion of inclusivity for a marginalized group.

4. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

   • The article highlights the enforcement of a specific institutional policy—the “sexual ethics” code—in a manner that is perceived as discriminatory against the LGBTQ+ community. This action runs counter to the goal of promoting and enforcing non-discriminatory policies within institutions.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Existence of institutional policies that affect inclusion.

   • The article explicitly mentions Baylor’s “stated sexual ethics” code. The existence and application of such a policy serve as a direct indicator of the institution’s formal stance on LGBTQ+ issues and its potential barriers to inclusion.

2. Allocation or rejection of financial resources for inclusion initiatives.

   • The return of the “$643,401 grant” is a quantifiable financial indicator. This action measures the institution’s commitment, or lack thereof, to funding research and initiatives aimed at promoting the inclusion of marginalized groups.

3. Public and institutional response to inclusion efforts.

   • The article mentions “public outcry” as a factor in the university’s decision. This serves as a qualitative indicator of the social climate and the level of support or opposition to LGBTQ+ inclusion within the broader university community, which influences institutional actions.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: christianpost.com