Every Student Deserves to Belong: LGBTQIA+ Experiences at Notre Dame
The issue
Every Student Deserves to Belong
A Call for Accountability, Transparency and an Independent Inquiry into LGBTQIA+ Student and Staff Experiences at the University of Notre Dame Australia
To the University of Notre Dame Australia, its leadership and the wider community,
Every student deserves to feel safe, accepted and valued at university, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.
Yet, for many LGBTQIA+ students at the University of Notre Dame Australia (UNDA), this has not always been their experience.
Over several years, current and former students, staff and student representatives have raised concerns about the treatment of LGBTQIA+ students, the restrictions placed on LGBTQIA+ student organisations, the University's approach to inclusion and visibility, and the availability of meaningful protections and support.
These concerns have been raised through formal correspondence, meetings with university leadership, student representation, petitions, surveys and public advocacy. Despite these efforts, significant questions remain about the University's policies, its responses to student concerns and whether its practices genuinely provide an environment where LGBTQIA+ people can participate fully and safely in university life.
This is not simply a disagreement about individual events, symbols or university policies. It is about whether LGBTQIA+ members of the university community can genuinely feel that they belong.
We are calling for an independent examination of these experiences, meaningful institutional accountability and lasting change.
1. The experiences of LGBTQIA+ students and staff
Experiences within the University community are not uniform. Some LGBTQIA+ students and staff have reported feeling safe and supported at Notre Dame. However, feedback from current and former students and staff has also identified a concerning pattern of people feeling unable to be fully open about their identities.
A recurring theme in survey responses was the perception of an unofficial 'don't ask, don't tell' environment, where LGBTQIA+ people felt compelled to minimise or conceal aspects of their identity to avoid unwanted attention, judgement or potential consequences.
This raises an important question: can a student genuinely feel included if they believe they must hide who they are to feel safe?
Survey respondents and members of the university community have described experiences including:
Harassment and mocking relating to pronoun pins and LGBTQIA+ identities.
Misogynistic and queerphobic conduct in classroom environments.
Unwanted physical and sexual advances, including reports of incidents following prolonged harassment.
Difficulties accessing appropriate and affirming support through university counselling services.
Invasive questioning about sexual orientation and gender identity when seeking support.
Classroom discussions that students experienced as hostile or demeaning towards LGBTQIA+ identities.
Persistent administrative deadnaming of transgender students on practicum placement documentation and graduation materials.
These are not merely questions of visibility or representation. They concern students' ability to access education, participate in university life, receive appropriate support and be treated with dignity.
No student should have to repeatedly correct their own university about their name or pronouns. No student should feel that wearing a pronoun pin, being open about their identity or seeking support makes them a target.
These reports deserve to be heard, properly examined and addressed.
2. The treatment of LGBTQIA+ student organisations
LGBTQIA+ student organisations play an important role in creating community, providing peer support, improving visibility and advocating for the safety and wellbeing of students.
However, concerns have been raised about the restrictions and additional administrative requirements imposed on LGBTQIA+ student organisations at Notre Dame, particularly in relation to Stripes Fremantle.
These concerns include the following.
Pride flags and visibility
Student Life formally advised that standalone Pride flags could not be flown, hung or displayed, although rainbow imagery incorporated into other displays was permitted.
The University characterised standalone Pride flags as symbols of both inclusion and protest or advocacy, rather than simply expressions of welcome and belonging. An alternative university-approved club banner was offered.
A Pride flag is not inherently a political act or an act of activism. For many LGBTQIA+ students, it communicates something much simpler:
You are welcome here. You are valued.
When a symbol of inclusion is treated as inappropriate or conditional, it raises questions about whether LGBTQIA+ students are being afforded the same freedom to express their identity and sense of community as other students.
Participation in Pride events
In written correspondence dated 24 October 2025, Student Life refused official club participation in external community events, including Fremantle Pride Fest, Pride in Swan and the Perth Pride Parade.
Students were encouraged to attend individually, but official university branding, club stalls and organised marching contingents were not permitted.
The University explained that restrictions applied to student groups generally, while identifying school-based societies, such as the Law Society's participation in Law Walk, as exceptions.
When challenged about other student organisations participating in external activities, Student Life acknowledged that it might not be informed of every club's activities in advance.
In August 2026, when asked to identify the governing policy underpinning restrictions on advocacy and external events, Student Life advised that the Attendance at External Events Framework remained an unfinalised draft under review.
These responses raise legitimate questions about the consistency, transparency and basis of the restrictions imposed on LGBTQIA+ student organisations.
Additional scrutiny and administrative requirements
Stripes was also required to submit promotional materials, giveaways, health resources and other stall items for individual pre-approval.
For the May 2026 IDAHOBIT stall, these requirements extended to historical resources and materials previously used by the society.
Student Life also issued guidelines restricting student club activities involving political advocacy or activism and requiring activities to align with the University's Catholic Objects.
Restrictions on events and programming
A proposed staff and student drag trivia event was cancelled, with the University stating that drag performance did not uphold the University's good name.
Student Life also called a meeting with club executives following the sharing of a youth public health graphic promoting STI and blood-borne virus testing, titled 'Merry Clitmas', deeming the health imaging inappropriate for university channels.
Survey responses concerning the latter incident were divided. While many respondents defended the post as youth-focused public health outreach, others considered its wording too informal for university branding.
That difference of opinion is important. Inclusion does not require every member of a university community to agree with every event, campaign or communication. It does, however, require fair, consistent and proportionate treatment of student organisations.
Taken together, these decisions raise important questions about the ability of LGBTQIA+ student organisations to independently organise, participate in community events and represent their members on an equal footing with other student societies.
3. Requests for meaningful support and protection
Concerns have extended beyond individual events and administrative decisions.
Students and representatives have actively proposed practical initiatives to improve LGBTQIA+ inclusion and wellbeing at Notre Dame.
In September 2025, proposals were submitted for:
A pastoral Ally Network, drawing on models implemented at other Australian universities.
'You Are Welcome Here' campus signage.
Pride in Diversity training for university staff.
Greater visibility and accessibility of LGBTQIA+ support services.
These proposals were taken on notice and referred to the Student Equity team for consideration in an upcoming strategy.
However, questions remain about what practical outcomes have followed and whether these initiatives have progressed.
Written protections and religious exemptions
Perhaps one of the most significant concerns relates to the protections available to LGBTQIA+ students and staff under statutory religious exemptions to discrimination laws.
Students sought clear, written assurances that they would not face expulsion, termination or academic detriment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
When this concern was raised with university leadership, the response included:
'We hope we wouldn't do that.'
University representatives also expressed disagreement about the interpretation of the relevant legislation.
While this may have been intended as reassurance, it did not provide the written certainty students were seeking.
Students and staff should not have to rely on informal assurances when asking fundamental questions about their rights, education, employment and safety.
The University should be able to clearly explain what protections are available, how its policies operate and what avenues exist when discrimination is experienced.
4. Classroom environments, academic freedom and student welfare
Concerns have also been raised about the experiences of LGBTQIA+ students within compulsory CORE curriculum units.
Students reported distress over required readings and classroom discussions in which queer identities and human sexuality were framed in terms of 'aberration' or 'sin'.
When concerns were raised, the University's response included that the texts were 'up for interpretation' and that students were assessed on their ability to represent ideas fairly rather than agree with particular positions.
Academic freedom, theological discussion and engagement with differing perspectives are important aspects of university education.
However, academic freedom should not be used to dismiss concerns about harassment, discrimination or the treatment of individual students.
There is a difference between examining religious, philosophical and ethical perspectives and allowing classroom discussions to become environments where students feel personally targeted or their identities are treated as inherently unacceptable.
Students should be able to engage with differing perspectives without having to defend their own existence.
There are also concerns about access to appropriate and affirming support services, including reports of students experiencing invasive questioning about their sexual orientation and gender identity when seeking assistance through university counselling services.
A university's responsibility to its students does not end at the classroom door. Counselling, welfare, disability and academic support services must also be accessible, appropriate and respectful.
5. What students and staff are telling us
Feedback collected from LGBTQIA+ students, former students and staff provides further insight into the experiences of the university community.
The survey responses demonstrate both the diversity of experiences and the areas where significant concerns remain.
Feeling safe and accepted
While some respondents reported feeling safe at Notre Dame, many queer students and alumni described feeling compelled to minimise or conceal their identities.
The perception of an unofficial 'don't ask, don't tell' environment was a recurring concern.
Pride flags and community participation
Most respondents considered restrictions on standalone Pride flags hurtful and difficult to reconcile with the University's commitment to inclusion.
An overwhelming majority supported allowing official participation in external Pride events, including community stalls and parades, so that LGBTQIA+ student organisations could participate alongside their peers at other Western Australian universities.
A minority considered the restrictions understandable within the context of a Catholic university. These differing perspectives should be acknowledged, but they do not remove the need for fair and transparent policies.
Visible assurances of safety
Students expressed strong support for visible campus signage communicating that LGBTQIA+ people are safe and welcome.
Proposals such as 'You Are Safe Here' posters were described as simple but meaningful ways to reduce isolation and reassure students that they are valued members of the university community.
For students who are not publicly out or who have experienced discrimination elsewhere, even a small visible indication of support can make a meaningful difference.
Written discrimination safeguards
The University's response of 'we hope we wouldn't do that' when asked about written protections was widely criticised by respondents as insufficient.
Students and staff expressed concern about uncertainty surrounding their academic and professional security.
Faith and LGBTQIA+ identity can coexist
A particularly important theme was the relationship between Catholic identity and LGBTQIA+ inclusion.
Most respondents rejected the suggestion that Catholic values are inherently incompatible with LGBTQIA+ identities. They instead identified common ground in dignity, love, compassion, justice, solidarity and care for others.
Respondents also highlighted that students choose Notre Dame for a variety of reasons, including its professional and academic programs in nursing, teaching and counselling. Their decision to study at a Catholic university should not mean compromising their identity or expecting less from their educational environment.
These findings demonstrate that LGBTQIA+ inclusion and Catholic identity need not be treated as mutually exclusive.
Taken together, the survey responses demonstrate that the question is not simply whether some students feel welcome at Notre Dame. It is whether every student can feel safe, respected and supported without having to conceal an important part of who they are.
6. The gap between institutional assurances and student experiences
The University has publicly maintained that it has 'never been discriminatory' and that there is no evidence of differential treatment towards LGBTQIA+ student groups.
However, these assertions must be considered alongside the documented correspondence, policy decisions, student accounts and survey findings.
There is a difference between stating a commitment to inclusion and demonstrating that policies and practices operate fairly and consistently.
The University's responses have varied. Some proposals have been referred for consideration, some activities have been restricted, and alternative arrangements have been offered. Other concerns have received responses that have not resolved the underlying questions.
There have also been administrative difficulties affecting Stripes, including the seven-week loss of access to its legacy email domain in early 2024 and subsequent delays in establishing and delegating access to its shared mailbox.
While these administrative matters should be examined in their own context, they form part of the broader history of obstacles that have affected the society's ability to operate and represent its members.
The issue is not simply whether the University has an inclusion policy or whether individual staff members express support for LGBTQIA+ students.
The issue is whether LGBTQIA+ students can genuinely access the same opportunities, protections, support and sense of belonging as their peers.
The University has had multiple opportunities to engage with these concerns. What remains necessary is an independent examination of its practices, its treatment of LGBTQIA+ students and the effectiveness of its existing protections.
7. What we are calling for
We are calling on the University of Notre Dame Australia to take meaningful and transparent action.
1. An independent and transparent inquiry
Establish an independent inquiry into the experiences and treatment of LGBTQIA+ students, staff and student organisations, including the University's handling of concerns raised between 2022 and 2026.
The inquiry should consider documented correspondence, policy decisions, survey findings and confidential accounts from current and former students and staff.
2. A review of policies and differential treatment
Examine the University's policies and practices concerning Pride flags, LGBTQIA+ visibility, external community participation, student organisation activities, event approvals and promotional materials.
Consider whether these policies have been applied consistently and whether restrictions have disproportionately affected LGBTQIA+ student organisations.
3. Clear and accessible protections
Provide clear written information about the protections available to LGBTQIA+ students and staff, including the application of statutory religious exemptions and the University's approach to discrimination, academic detriment, employment consequences and exclusion.
4. Investigation of reported harassment and discrimination
Review reports of harassment, unwanted physical and sexual conduct, queerphobic and misogynistic behaviour, misgendering, deadnaming and the University's handling of complaints and requests for intervention.
5. Safe and accessible student support
Review the accessibility and appropriateness of counselling, welfare, disability and academic support services for LGBTQIA+ students, including transgender, neurodivergent and otherwise marginalised students.
6. Meaningful student and staff representation
Ensure LGBTQIA+ students, current and former student representatives, staff and LGBTQIA+ student organisations have genuine opportunities to participate in reviewing policies and developing solutions.
Consultation should be confidential where necessary and should not require students to publicly disclose their identities or experiences.
7. Visible inclusion and community participation
Reconsider restrictions on standalone Pride flags, LGBTQIA+ visibility, external Pride events and community engagement.
Support practical initiatives such as 'You Are Safe Here' signage, an Ally Network and appropriate LGBTQIA+ inclusion training.
8. Staff education and institutional change
Introduce appropriate LGBTQIA+ awareness, inclusion and anti-discrimination training, alongside practical measures to ensure staff understand their responsibilities towards LGBTQIA+ students and colleagues.
9. Transparency and accountability
Publish the inquiry's findings and recommendations, provide a clear implementation timeline and report on progress towards addressing identified concerns.
10. Protection against retaliation
Ensure students and staff who raise concerns, participate in investigations or advocate for LGBTQIA+ rights are protected from adverse academic, administrative, employment or disciplinary treatment as a consequence of speaking up.
8. Every student deserves to belong
The University of Notre Dame Australia has an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to human dignity, compassion, justice and the wellbeing of its community extends to everyone.
This is not a request for the University to abandon its Catholic identity or prevent legitimate academic discussion.
It is a request for LGBTQIA+ students and staff to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, and for the University's policies and practices to reflect those principles.
A Catholic university can maintain its religious identity while ensuring that LGBTQIA+ members of its community are safe, supported and treated fairly. The values of compassion, solidarity, justice and care for others provide an important foundation for that work.
No student should have to repeatedly advocate for their basic rights, justify their visibility or seek assurances that they will not be discriminated against.
No student should have to choose between their education and their identity. No student should feel that their participation in university life is conditional on being less visible, less vocal or less themselves.
The experiences outlined in this petition deserve more than acknowledgement. They deserve careful examination, transparent responses and meaningful institutional change.
We are asking the University to listen to its community, independently examine the concerns that have been raised and take responsibility for creating an environment where every student and staff member can genuinely belong.
Please sign and share this petition. Whether you are a current student, former student, staff member, family member, ally or member of the wider community, your support can help demonstrate why these concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
Every student deserves to belong.
26
The issue
Every Student Deserves to Belong
A Call for Accountability, Transparency and an Independent Inquiry into LGBTQIA+ Student and Staff Experiences at the University of Notre Dame Australia
To the University of Notre Dame Australia, its leadership and the wider community,
Every student deserves to feel safe, accepted and valued at university, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.
Yet, for many LGBTQIA+ students at the University of Notre Dame Australia (UNDA), this has not always been their experience.
Over several years, current and former students, staff and student representatives have raised concerns about the treatment of LGBTQIA+ students, the restrictions placed on LGBTQIA+ student organisations, the University's approach to inclusion and visibility, and the availability of meaningful protections and support.
These concerns have been raised through formal correspondence, meetings with university leadership, student representation, petitions, surveys and public advocacy. Despite these efforts, significant questions remain about the University's policies, its responses to student concerns and whether its practices genuinely provide an environment where LGBTQIA+ people can participate fully and safely in university life.
This is not simply a disagreement about individual events, symbols or university policies. It is about whether LGBTQIA+ members of the university community can genuinely feel that they belong.
We are calling for an independent examination of these experiences, meaningful institutional accountability and lasting change.
1. The experiences of LGBTQIA+ students and staff
Experiences within the University community are not uniform. Some LGBTQIA+ students and staff have reported feeling safe and supported at Notre Dame. However, feedback from current and former students and staff has also identified a concerning pattern of people feeling unable to be fully open about their identities.
A recurring theme in survey responses was the perception of an unofficial 'don't ask, don't tell' environment, where LGBTQIA+ people felt compelled to minimise or conceal aspects of their identity to avoid unwanted attention, judgement or potential consequences.
This raises an important question: can a student genuinely feel included if they believe they must hide who they are to feel safe?
Survey respondents and members of the university community have described experiences including:
Harassment and mocking relating to pronoun pins and LGBTQIA+ identities.
Misogynistic and queerphobic conduct in classroom environments.
Unwanted physical and sexual advances, including reports of incidents following prolonged harassment.
Difficulties accessing appropriate and affirming support through university counselling services.
Invasive questioning about sexual orientation and gender identity when seeking support.
Classroom discussions that students experienced as hostile or demeaning towards LGBTQIA+ identities.
Persistent administrative deadnaming of transgender students on practicum placement documentation and graduation materials.
These are not merely questions of visibility or representation. They concern students' ability to access education, participate in university life, receive appropriate support and be treated with dignity.
No student should have to repeatedly correct their own university about their name or pronouns. No student should feel that wearing a pronoun pin, being open about their identity or seeking support makes them a target.
These reports deserve to be heard, properly examined and addressed.
2. The treatment of LGBTQIA+ student organisations
LGBTQIA+ student organisations play an important role in creating community, providing peer support, improving visibility and advocating for the safety and wellbeing of students.
However, concerns have been raised about the restrictions and additional administrative requirements imposed on LGBTQIA+ student organisations at Notre Dame, particularly in relation to Stripes Fremantle.
These concerns include the following.
Pride flags and visibility
Student Life formally advised that standalone Pride flags could not be flown, hung or displayed, although rainbow imagery incorporated into other displays was permitted.
The University characterised standalone Pride flags as symbols of both inclusion and protest or advocacy, rather than simply expressions of welcome and belonging. An alternative university-approved club banner was offered.
A Pride flag is not inherently a political act or an act of activism. For many LGBTQIA+ students, it communicates something much simpler:
You are welcome here. You are valued.
When a symbol of inclusion is treated as inappropriate or conditional, it raises questions about whether LGBTQIA+ students are being afforded the same freedom to express their identity and sense of community as other students.
Participation in Pride events
In written correspondence dated 24 October 2025, Student Life refused official club participation in external community events, including Fremantle Pride Fest, Pride in Swan and the Perth Pride Parade.
Students were encouraged to attend individually, but official university branding, club stalls and organised marching contingents were not permitted.
The University explained that restrictions applied to student groups generally, while identifying school-based societies, such as the Law Society's participation in Law Walk, as exceptions.
When challenged about other student organisations participating in external activities, Student Life acknowledged that it might not be informed of every club's activities in advance.
In August 2026, when asked to identify the governing policy underpinning restrictions on advocacy and external events, Student Life advised that the Attendance at External Events Framework remained an unfinalised draft under review.
These responses raise legitimate questions about the consistency, transparency and basis of the restrictions imposed on LGBTQIA+ student organisations.
Additional scrutiny and administrative requirements
Stripes was also required to submit promotional materials, giveaways, health resources and other stall items for individual pre-approval.
For the May 2026 IDAHOBIT stall, these requirements extended to historical resources and materials previously used by the society.
Student Life also issued guidelines restricting student club activities involving political advocacy or activism and requiring activities to align with the University's Catholic Objects.
Restrictions on events and programming
A proposed staff and student drag trivia event was cancelled, with the University stating that drag performance did not uphold the University's good name.
Student Life also called a meeting with club executives following the sharing of a youth public health graphic promoting STI and blood-borne virus testing, titled 'Merry Clitmas', deeming the health imaging inappropriate for university channels.
Survey responses concerning the latter incident were divided. While many respondents defended the post as youth-focused public health outreach, others considered its wording too informal for university branding.
That difference of opinion is important. Inclusion does not require every member of a university community to agree with every event, campaign or communication. It does, however, require fair, consistent and proportionate treatment of student organisations.
Taken together, these decisions raise important questions about the ability of LGBTQIA+ student organisations to independently organise, participate in community events and represent their members on an equal footing with other student societies.
3. Requests for meaningful support and protection
Concerns have extended beyond individual events and administrative decisions.
Students and representatives have actively proposed practical initiatives to improve LGBTQIA+ inclusion and wellbeing at Notre Dame.
In September 2025, proposals were submitted for:
A pastoral Ally Network, drawing on models implemented at other Australian universities.
'You Are Welcome Here' campus signage.
Pride in Diversity training for university staff.
Greater visibility and accessibility of LGBTQIA+ support services.
These proposals were taken on notice and referred to the Student Equity team for consideration in an upcoming strategy.
However, questions remain about what practical outcomes have followed and whether these initiatives have progressed.
Written protections and religious exemptions
Perhaps one of the most significant concerns relates to the protections available to LGBTQIA+ students and staff under statutory religious exemptions to discrimination laws.
Students sought clear, written assurances that they would not face expulsion, termination or academic detriment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
When this concern was raised with university leadership, the response included:
'We hope we wouldn't do that.'
University representatives also expressed disagreement about the interpretation of the relevant legislation.
While this may have been intended as reassurance, it did not provide the written certainty students were seeking.
Students and staff should not have to rely on informal assurances when asking fundamental questions about their rights, education, employment and safety.
The University should be able to clearly explain what protections are available, how its policies operate and what avenues exist when discrimination is experienced.
4. Classroom environments, academic freedom and student welfare
Concerns have also been raised about the experiences of LGBTQIA+ students within compulsory CORE curriculum units.
Students reported distress over required readings and classroom discussions in which queer identities and human sexuality were framed in terms of 'aberration' or 'sin'.
When concerns were raised, the University's response included that the texts were 'up for interpretation' and that students were assessed on their ability to represent ideas fairly rather than agree with particular positions.
Academic freedom, theological discussion and engagement with differing perspectives are important aspects of university education.
However, academic freedom should not be used to dismiss concerns about harassment, discrimination or the treatment of individual students.
There is a difference between examining religious, philosophical and ethical perspectives and allowing classroom discussions to become environments where students feel personally targeted or their identities are treated as inherently unacceptable.
Students should be able to engage with differing perspectives without having to defend their own existence.
There are also concerns about access to appropriate and affirming support services, including reports of students experiencing invasive questioning about their sexual orientation and gender identity when seeking assistance through university counselling services.
A university's responsibility to its students does not end at the classroom door. Counselling, welfare, disability and academic support services must also be accessible, appropriate and respectful.
5. What students and staff are telling us
Feedback collected from LGBTQIA+ students, former students and staff provides further insight into the experiences of the university community.
The survey responses demonstrate both the diversity of experiences and the areas where significant concerns remain.
Feeling safe and accepted
While some respondents reported feeling safe at Notre Dame, many queer students and alumni described feeling compelled to minimise or conceal their identities.
The perception of an unofficial 'don't ask, don't tell' environment was a recurring concern.
Pride flags and community participation
Most respondents considered restrictions on standalone Pride flags hurtful and difficult to reconcile with the University's commitment to inclusion.
An overwhelming majority supported allowing official participation in external Pride events, including community stalls and parades, so that LGBTQIA+ student organisations could participate alongside their peers at other Western Australian universities.
A minority considered the restrictions understandable within the context of a Catholic university. These differing perspectives should be acknowledged, but they do not remove the need for fair and transparent policies.
Visible assurances of safety
Students expressed strong support for visible campus signage communicating that LGBTQIA+ people are safe and welcome.
Proposals such as 'You Are Safe Here' posters were described as simple but meaningful ways to reduce isolation and reassure students that they are valued members of the university community.
For students who are not publicly out or who have experienced discrimination elsewhere, even a small visible indication of support can make a meaningful difference.
Written discrimination safeguards
The University's response of 'we hope we wouldn't do that' when asked about written protections was widely criticised by respondents as insufficient.
Students and staff expressed concern about uncertainty surrounding their academic and professional security.
Faith and LGBTQIA+ identity can coexist
A particularly important theme was the relationship between Catholic identity and LGBTQIA+ inclusion.
Most respondents rejected the suggestion that Catholic values are inherently incompatible with LGBTQIA+ identities. They instead identified common ground in dignity, love, compassion, justice, solidarity and care for others.
Respondents also highlighted that students choose Notre Dame for a variety of reasons, including its professional and academic programs in nursing, teaching and counselling. Their decision to study at a Catholic university should not mean compromising their identity or expecting less from their educational environment.
These findings demonstrate that LGBTQIA+ inclusion and Catholic identity need not be treated as mutually exclusive.
Taken together, the survey responses demonstrate that the question is not simply whether some students feel welcome at Notre Dame. It is whether every student can feel safe, respected and supported without having to conceal an important part of who they are.
6. The gap between institutional assurances and student experiences
The University has publicly maintained that it has 'never been discriminatory' and that there is no evidence of differential treatment towards LGBTQIA+ student groups.
However, these assertions must be considered alongside the documented correspondence, policy decisions, student accounts and survey findings.
There is a difference between stating a commitment to inclusion and demonstrating that policies and practices operate fairly and consistently.
The University's responses have varied. Some proposals have been referred for consideration, some activities have been restricted, and alternative arrangements have been offered. Other concerns have received responses that have not resolved the underlying questions.
There have also been administrative difficulties affecting Stripes, including the seven-week loss of access to its legacy email domain in early 2024 and subsequent delays in establishing and delegating access to its shared mailbox.
While these administrative matters should be examined in their own context, they form part of the broader history of obstacles that have affected the society's ability to operate and represent its members.
The issue is not simply whether the University has an inclusion policy or whether individual staff members express support for LGBTQIA+ students.
The issue is whether LGBTQIA+ students can genuinely access the same opportunities, protections, support and sense of belonging as their peers.
The University has had multiple opportunities to engage with these concerns. What remains necessary is an independent examination of its practices, its treatment of LGBTQIA+ students and the effectiveness of its existing protections.
7. What we are calling for
We are calling on the University of Notre Dame Australia to take meaningful and transparent action.
1. An independent and transparent inquiry
Establish an independent inquiry into the experiences and treatment of LGBTQIA+ students, staff and student organisations, including the University's handling of concerns raised between 2022 and 2026.
The inquiry should consider documented correspondence, policy decisions, survey findings and confidential accounts from current and former students and staff.
2. A review of policies and differential treatment
Examine the University's policies and practices concerning Pride flags, LGBTQIA+ visibility, external community participation, student organisation activities, event approvals and promotional materials.
Consider whether these policies have been applied consistently and whether restrictions have disproportionately affected LGBTQIA+ student organisations.
3. Clear and accessible protections
Provide clear written information about the protections available to LGBTQIA+ students and staff, including the application of statutory religious exemptions and the University's approach to discrimination, academic detriment, employment consequences and exclusion.
4. Investigation of reported harassment and discrimination
Review reports of harassment, unwanted physical and sexual conduct, queerphobic and misogynistic behaviour, misgendering, deadnaming and the University's handling of complaints and requests for intervention.
5. Safe and accessible student support
Review the accessibility and appropriateness of counselling, welfare, disability and academic support services for LGBTQIA+ students, including transgender, neurodivergent and otherwise marginalised students.
6. Meaningful student and staff representation
Ensure LGBTQIA+ students, current and former student representatives, staff and LGBTQIA+ student organisations have genuine opportunities to participate in reviewing policies and developing solutions.
Consultation should be confidential where necessary and should not require students to publicly disclose their identities or experiences.
7. Visible inclusion and community participation
Reconsider restrictions on standalone Pride flags, LGBTQIA+ visibility, external Pride events and community engagement.
Support practical initiatives such as 'You Are Safe Here' signage, an Ally Network and appropriate LGBTQIA+ inclusion training.
8. Staff education and institutional change
Introduce appropriate LGBTQIA+ awareness, inclusion and anti-discrimination training, alongside practical measures to ensure staff understand their responsibilities towards LGBTQIA+ students and colleagues.
9. Transparency and accountability
Publish the inquiry's findings and recommendations, provide a clear implementation timeline and report on progress towards addressing identified concerns.
10. Protection against retaliation
Ensure students and staff who raise concerns, participate in investigations or advocate for LGBTQIA+ rights are protected from adverse academic, administrative, employment or disciplinary treatment as a consequence of speaking up.
8. Every student deserves to belong
The University of Notre Dame Australia has an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to human dignity, compassion, justice and the wellbeing of its community extends to everyone.
This is not a request for the University to abandon its Catholic identity or prevent legitimate academic discussion.
It is a request for LGBTQIA+ students and staff to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, and for the University's policies and practices to reflect those principles.
A Catholic university can maintain its religious identity while ensuring that LGBTQIA+ members of its community are safe, supported and treated fairly. The values of compassion, solidarity, justice and care for others provide an important foundation for that work.
No student should have to repeatedly advocate for their basic rights, justify their visibility or seek assurances that they will not be discriminated against.
No student should have to choose between their education and their identity. No student should feel that their participation in university life is conditional on being less visible, less vocal or less themselves.
The experiences outlined in this petition deserve more than acknowledgement. They deserve careful examination, transparent responses and meaningful institutional change.
We are asking the University to listen to its community, independently examine the concerns that have been raised and take responsibility for creating an environment where every student and staff member can genuinely belong.
Please sign and share this petition. Whether you are a current student, former student, staff member, family member, ally or member of the wider community, your support can help demonstrate why these concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
Every student deserves to belong.
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 9 November 2026