Anti-LGBT2Q+ University Values: Should an Innovative Experiential Exercise be Cancelled? Custom Case Solution & Analysis

1. Evidence Brief: Case Extraction

Financial Metrics

Institutional Revenue Model: Christian Heritage University (CHU) operates as a private, tuition-dependent institution. A significant portion of the annual budget relies on a donor base that prioritizes adherence to the Statement of Faith.
Market Placement Value: The business program maintains a 92 percent job placement rate within six months of graduation. Maintaining this rate requires students to be competitive in secular corporate environments.
Cost of Litigation: Potential legal expenses related to faculty contract disputes or academic freedom challenges remain unquantified but represent a material risk to the small endowment.

Operational Facts

The Exercise: An experiential simulation titled The Privilege Walk, designed to illustrate systemic advantages and disadvantages. It includes prompts related to socio-economic status, race, and LGBT2Q+ identity.
Course Context: The exercise is a mandatory component of the Leadership and Organizational Behavior module, a core requirement for all business majors.
Institutional Policy: The Statement of Faith explicitly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and expects all community members to uphold traditional biblical values regarding gender and sexuality.
Geography: CHU is located in a region with high concentrations of conservative religious constituents, influencing both student recruitment and local corporate partnerships.

Stakeholder Positions

Dr. Sarah West: Associate Professor of Management. Argues that excluding LGBT2Q+ identities from the exercise renders the simulation inaccurate for modern workplace preparation. Cites academic freedom and pedagogical integrity.
Dean Miller: Caught between supporting faculty innovation and responding to administrative pressure. Prioritizes institutional stability and donor relations.
The Complaining Student: Asserts that the exercise forced a public admission of values that conflict with their religious upbringing, creating a hostile learning environment.
Board of Trustees: Primarily concerned with brand dilution and the potential for a donor exodus if the university is perceived as drifting toward secularism.

Information Gaps

Faculty Contracts: The specific language regarding the intersection of academic freedom and the Statement of Faith is not provided.
Donor Sensitivity: The exact percentage of the budget contributed by the top ten donors—and their specific views on this curriculum—is absent.
Accreditation Status: The timeline for the next business school accreditation review, which often evaluates DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) components, is not stated.

2. Strategic Analysis

Core Strategic Question

How can CHU reconcile its foundational religious identity with the market-driven necessity of preparing students for a diverse, secular corporate landscape?
Does the inclusion of LGBT2Q+ identities in a classroom simulation constitute a violation of institutional values or a necessary component of professional literacy?

Structural Analysis

Applying the Strategic Positioning lens reveals a fundamental conflict. CHU competes on a niche strategy of faith-integrated education. However, its output (graduates) must be consumed by a broader market (global corporations) that operates under different social norms. The value chain is currently broken at the point of curriculum delivery; the school is failing to provide the empathy-based skills required by high-tier employers while simultaneously risking its core brand identity with its primary funders.

Strategic Options

Option 1: Full Cancellation of the Exercise. This preserves the brand relationship with conservative donors and ensures strict adherence to the Statement of Faith.
Trade-offs: High risk of faculty attrition, potential loss of business school accreditation, and decreased student competitiveness in global job markets.
Resources: Minimal financial cost; high reputational cost among academic peers.

Option 2: The Middle Path — Re-framing and Opt-outs. Retain the exercise but modify the prompts to focus on professional scenarios rather than personal identity. Provide an alternative assignment for students with religious objections.
Trade-offs: Dilutes the pedagogical impact of the exercise and may be viewed as a compromise that satisfies no one.
Resources: Requires significant faculty time to redesign the module.

Option 3: Strategic Re-branding of DEI as Global Market Literacy. Defend the exercise not as a moral stance, but as a technical requirement for corporate leadership. Frame LGBT2Q+ inclusion as a market reality that students must navigate, regardless of personal belief.
Trade-offs: Requires sophisticated communication to donors; may still face resistance from the Board.
Resources: High investment in administrative communication and stakeholder management.

Preliminary Recommendation

Pursue Option 3. CHU cannot afford to produce graduates who are functionally illiterate in modern corporate social dynamics. By framing the exercise as Market Literacy, the university maintains its theological boundaries while fulfilling its duty to prepare students for employment. This preserves the 92 percent placement rate, which is the school's strongest selling point to prospective families.

3. Operations and Implementation Planner

Critical Path

The transition must move from defensive posture to proactive policy within 90 days.

Days 1-15: Form a Curriculum Review Committee comprising the Dean, Dr. West, and a representative from the Board to audit the Privilege Walk prompts.
Days 16-45: Draft a Professional Literacy Addendum to the syllabus. This document must state that exposure to diverse perspectives is a requirement for professional competence and does not mandate personal endorsement of those perspectives.
Days 46-75: Conduct faculty workshops on navigating controversial topics in faith-based classrooms. Focus on the distinction between teaching about a social reality and advocating for it.
Days 76-90: Issue a formal communication to donors and the student body clarifying the university's commitment to both the Statement of Faith and the professional success of its graduates.

Key Constraints

The Donor Veto: If a lead donor threatens to withdraw 10 percent or more of the annual fund, the administration will likely bypass the Dean and cancel the exercise.
Faculty Trust: Dr. West and her colleagues may view any modification as a violation of academic freedom, leading to a talent drain to secular institutions.

Risk-Adjusted Implementation Strategy

The plan assumes that the Board values placement rates over ideological purity. To mitigate the risk of a donor revolt, the Provost must lead the communication strategy, using language that emphasizes the competitive disadvantage students face if they are shielded from the realities of the modern workforce. A contingency plan must be ready: if the Board demands a total ban, the university must immediately secure an alternative experiential tool that addresses power and privilege without using the specific LGBT2Q+ identifiers that triggered the complaint.

4. Executive Review and BLUF

BLUF

Retain the exercise but re-frame it as Market Literacy. CHU faces a structural threat: its graduates are entering a corporate world where DEI competency is a baseline requirement, yet its funding depends on a donor base that views such competency as a compromise of faith. Cancellation is a short-sighted move that will erode the 92 percent placement rate and jeopardize accreditation. The university must decouple personal belief from professional preparation. By positioning the Privilege Walk as a tool for understanding the global marketplace rather than a moral mandate, CHU can protect its brand while ensuring its students remain employable. The Dean must act as the bridge, translating the pedagogical necessity into a language the Board and donors can accept.

Dangerous Assumption

The analysis assumes that the donor base and the Board are rational actors who will prioritize student placement rates over theological consistency. In faith-based institutions, ideological purity often outweighs economic logic. If the donors view this as a slippery slope toward secularization, no amount of market data will change their position.

Unaddressed Risks

Legal Precedent: Allowing an opt-out for this exercise may set a precedent where students can refuse to learn any material—such as evolution or secular ethics—that conflicts with their personal views, rendering the curriculum unmanageable.
Social Media Contagion: A single leaked video or recording of the exercise could trigger a national media cycle, forcing the Board into a reactionary stance before the internal 90-day plan can take effect.

Unconsidered Alternative

The university could outsource the DEI and empathy-building components to a third-party corporate training firm. This would move the controversial content out of the core curriculum and into a professional development workshop. This provides the university with plausible deniability—they are providing a professional service, not teaching a core value—while still ensuring students receive the necessary training.