CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE - AND COLLECTIVE GRIEF AMID LGBTQ+ CENTER CLOSURES IN TEXAS AND NATIONWIDE

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jayni

Reflexive essay examines the closure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) resource centers on college campuses, focusing on a conflict between theory and practice. It argues that these centers are essential to LGBTQ+ students’ safety, health, wellbeing, and persistence, yet closures across the U.S., especially in Texas, have produced collective grief among students, faculty, and staff. The piece recommends trauma-informed practices for student affairs as a vital, potentially life-saving response.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages6

Reading Time15 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Context and closure impacts in Texas

UT Austin and compliance dynamics

Transgender student experiences

Reflexive framing and practitioner questions

What LGBTQ+ centers provide on campuses

Mental health consequences and safety concerns

CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE, AND COLLECTIVE GRIEF AMID LGBTQ+ CENTER CLOSURES IN TEXAS AND NATIONWIDE Michael A. Goodman The University of Texas at Austin Randy Lopez The University of Texas at Austin Sarah Simi Cohen Javier Ramirez The University of Texas at Austin Abstract This reflexive essay is about the closure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) resource centers on college campuses. Notably, there is a conflict between theory and practice, as these spaces are essential for the safety, health, wellbeing, and perseverance of LGBTQ+ students, despite closures occurring across the country and especially in Texas.As such, there is a collective, shared grief between students, faculty, and staff, one that is felt deeply as these spaces have disappeared from Texas’public colleges and universities. We recommend trauma-informed practices as an important approach to support the community, and as an enhancement to student affairs practice that is not only essential, but life-saving. Keywords: LGBTQ+, public policy, Texas, trauma Please direct inquires about this manuscript to: Michael A.Goodman, michael.goodman@[austin.utexas.edu](austin.utexas.edu). College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 43(2), pp. 15-20 ISSN 2381-2338 Copyright 2025 Southern Association for College Student Affairs All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 16 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 43, No.2, 2025 O n January 1, 2024, Texas Senate Bill 17 (SB17) went into effect. Among other directives, the Gender and Sexuality Center was closed at The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin). The staff worked tirelessly with university administrators and legal officers to provide tactical support on changing the name, mission, and ethos from the Gender and Sexuality Center to the Women’s Community Center. This was done to ensure students still hada space that was in compliance with SB17. Yet, efforts were altogether eliminated and accompanied by the firing of associated staff members (Xia & Dey, 2024). Despite confirmation that the change was well within the means of the bill, overcompliance ultimately won. It is estimated that over 60+ employees lost their jobs due to SB17, forcing many to relocate after establishing families and homes in the greater Austin area (Zhu & Fogel, 2024). At UT Austin, transgender students already reported they felt uncomfortable, uneasy, and unsafe on campus (Hunter et al., 2022).Transgender and nonbinary students felt their pronouns were not respected and many did not feel comfortable even sharing them due to fear of disrespect (Hunter et al., 2022). Given the closure of the key resources on campus, atthe start of the year, two authors of this essay attended a queer student town hall on campus, organized and hosted by queer students and student leaders. The town hall was a space where queer students expressed their grief over the closure of these services. For one of the authors, it was their first time experiencing the real-time repercussions of this resource closure and how it affected students directly. It was a difficult, eye-opening experience, and as one author noted, the grief resonated with their own frustrations of how dismissive the university had been altogether. With this context in mind, we write this reflexive essay wondering, how can student affairs practitioners in places like Texas do “best” or“promising”student affairs practice for LGBTQ+ students when some of the key recommendations are prohibited by law? Further, given the evolution of offerings, especially in Southern states, how might practitioners be expected to wrestle with the literature that clearly states the work is beneficial, yet some states have deemed it illegal? In many ways, these questions respond to present-day crises that are faced by schools in the South, and in particular, Texas. When we think about the evolution of practices, policies, and institutions, as well as w

FAQs

What central conflict does the essay highlight regarding LGBTQ+ center closures?

The essay highlights a conflict between theory and practice: although LGBTQ+ resource centers are crucial for students’ safety and wellbeing, closures are still occurring across the country and in Texas.

How did UT Austin address the Gender and Sexuality Center after SB17 took effect?

After Texas Senate Bill 17 (SB17) went into effect, UT Austin closed the Gender and Sexuality Center and staff tried to shift the name, mission, and ethos to the Women’s Community Center to maintain compliance. The efforts were later eliminated along with the firing of associated staff.

Why does the essay recommend trauma-informed practices for student affairs practitioners?

The essay recommends trauma-informed practices because the closures have produced deep, collective grief and harm to LGBTQ+ students’ safety and wellbeing, making supportive approaches essential for student affairs.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jayni