Christopher Yendt
Christopher is a current graduate student in the Faculty of Education at Brock University. He is a passionate #MentalHealth Advocate and Researcher. Currently, Christopher is investigating differences in Mental Health Literacy (MHL) between one-year and two-year pre-service teacher education candidates. He graduated from Brock University in 2015 with both a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and a Bachelor of Education, and is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) and of The Association of Registered Psychotherapists & Mental Health Professionals (OACCPP).
Christopher first got his start in board governance and not-for-profit management in his third year at Brock, taking on the position of Board President for Brock University Student Radio. From there he served as a member of Brock's student council (BUSAC) for four years, three terms on both Brock University's Senate, and as vice-chair. He also served a term as the Vice-President, Finance and Adminstration which helped craft a deeper appreciation for NFP governance and organizational management.
He currently serves as the Vice President, Finance for the Brock University Graduate Students' Association (GSA), and is the first Brock student to have served as an executive of both the undergraduate and graduate student associations. In the community he holds the positions of: Vice-President of Canadian Mental Health Association, Niagara Branch, Vice-Chair of NEXTNiagara and Rainbow's End Community Development Corporation as well as a lay member of the Board of the North Hamilton Community Health Centre.
Christopher first got his start in board governance and not-for-profit management in his third year at Brock, taking on the position of Board President for Brock University Student Radio. From there he served as a member of Brock's student council (BUSAC) for four years, three terms on both Brock University's Senate, and as vice-chair. He also served a term as the Vice-President, Finance and Adminstration which helped craft a deeper appreciation for NFP governance and organizational management.
He currently serves as the Vice President, Finance for the Brock University Graduate Students' Association (GSA), and is the first Brock student to have served as an executive of both the undergraduate and graduate student associations. In the community he holds the positions of: Vice-President of Canadian Mental Health Association, Niagara Branch, Vice-Chair of NEXTNiagara and Rainbow's End Community Development Corporation as well as a lay member of the Board of the North Hamilton Community Health Centre.
less
InterestsView All (7)
Uploads
Papers
community-wide challenges with a unique and often overlooked perspective. The case studies in this edition of Habitats: Students in their Municipalities create an important roadmap highlighting student concerns and proposing solutions to support stronger communities for
all.
on their campuses. Yet on many Ontario university campuses, Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students face such realities and are marginalized because of who they are. In some cases, these students become the targets of deliberate, hate-motivated actions, and in other instances, the blame lies in ignorance or apathy. It is OUSA’s hope that the recommendations provided in this paper will contribute to improving access to and safety in postsecondary education for Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students.
NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY
This paper uses the acronym LGBTQ+ to refer to anyone who identifies as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Two-Spirit, Asexual, Pansexual, and other identities and sexualities that are not cisgender or heterosexual. Over the years, this acronym has evolved and variations, including LGBTQIA+ and LGBTQ2+, have become more commonly used. This paper uses the term LGBTQ+ because it is more widely used and recognized at this time, particularly when
compared to alternatives, such as MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Gender, and Intersex). It is important to note that language and nomenclature continues to evolve and terminology may be adjusted. The plus sign (+) in LGBTQ+ indicates the intention to recognize a diverse and fluid range of gender identities, gender expressions, and sexual orientations. Additionally, in this paper the terms “trans” and “transgender” are
used interchangeably.
SCOPE AND LENS
It is important to note that not all individuals under the umbrella term LGBTQ+ face the same issues and barriers. The identities and communities to which the term LGBTQ+ refers face distinct experiences and challenges. While efforts have been made to address specific issues, such as bi-erasure, it is not within the scope of this paper to
engage in all of these important and more nuanced discussions. As such, this paper
attempts to explore more general issues of inclusion, awareness, safety, and respect.
Though this paper recognizes and discusses problems that are manifestations of larger systemic and historical structures that continue to oppress the LGBTQ+ community, it is also beyond the scope of this paper to offer an academic exploration of these root causes. Rather, it is our hope to address some of these underlying causes through the tools we propose in this paper, including education and policy change. Ultimately, however, this paper maintains a problem-solving and policy-oriented lens, primarily offering short-term prescriptions intended to improve the experiences of LGBTQ+ students on their campuses. Further, the topics discussed cannot be fully understood without a greater examination of intersectionality and the role of racism, ableism, ageism, and other forms of discrimination in the oppression of LGBTQ+ folks. The authors of this paper have taken steps to address intersecting identities; however, to maintain a problem-solving oriented scope closely tied to consultation, this paper treads lightly on issues of intersectionality and has not adopted an intersectional lens as a whole. The following paper attempts to offer policy solutions in the context of broad and complex topics and, as such, there are still many important issues to be discussed. This paper does not claim to serve as a comprehensive list of challenges faced by all student s who identify as LGBTQ+, nor as an authoritative description of the nature of these problems. Instead, it intends to serve as a first step towards introducing improvements.
LGBTQ+.
hand, government control of universities raises serious concerns about the institutional autonomy that safeguards the ideals of academic freedom and innovation. On the other, given that public investment in higher education exceeds $8,000 per student, the public has a right to know where, for what and how tax dollars are being spent. Over time, the Ontario university system has developed a series of accountability mechanisms that have attempted to acknowledge both realities. While these initiatives have been worthwhile, the results have not been entirely effective or accountable. Moreover, they do not adequately provide an avenue for quality improvement. To address these shortcomings, this paper makes recommendations for changes to current accountability mechanisms
that will allow a greater degree of transparency in the system, but will also move universities towards certain public goals.
community-wide challenges with a unique and often overlooked perspective. The case studies in this edition of Habitats: Students in their Municipalities create an important roadmap highlighting student concerns and proposing solutions to support stronger communities for
all.
on their campuses. Yet on many Ontario university campuses, Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students face such realities and are marginalized because of who they are. In some cases, these students become the targets of deliberate, hate-motivated actions, and in other instances, the blame lies in ignorance or apathy. It is OUSA’s hope that the recommendations provided in this paper will contribute to improving access to and safety in postsecondary education for Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students.
NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY
This paper uses the acronym LGBTQ+ to refer to anyone who identifies as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Two-Spirit, Asexual, Pansexual, and other identities and sexualities that are not cisgender or heterosexual. Over the years, this acronym has evolved and variations, including LGBTQIA+ and LGBTQ2+, have become more commonly used. This paper uses the term LGBTQ+ because it is more widely used and recognized at this time, particularly when
compared to alternatives, such as MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Gender, and Intersex). It is important to note that language and nomenclature continues to evolve and terminology may be adjusted. The plus sign (+) in LGBTQ+ indicates the intention to recognize a diverse and fluid range of gender identities, gender expressions, and sexual orientations. Additionally, in this paper the terms “trans” and “transgender” are
used interchangeably.
SCOPE AND LENS
It is important to note that not all individuals under the umbrella term LGBTQ+ face the same issues and barriers. The identities and communities to which the term LGBTQ+ refers face distinct experiences and challenges. While efforts have been made to address specific issues, such as bi-erasure, it is not within the scope of this paper to
engage in all of these important and more nuanced discussions. As such, this paper
attempts to explore more general issues of inclusion, awareness, safety, and respect.
Though this paper recognizes and discusses problems that are manifestations of larger systemic and historical structures that continue to oppress the LGBTQ+ community, it is also beyond the scope of this paper to offer an academic exploration of these root causes. Rather, it is our hope to address some of these underlying causes through the tools we propose in this paper, including education and policy change. Ultimately, however, this paper maintains a problem-solving and policy-oriented lens, primarily offering short-term prescriptions intended to improve the experiences of LGBTQ+ students on their campuses. Further, the topics discussed cannot be fully understood without a greater examination of intersectionality and the role of racism, ableism, ageism, and other forms of discrimination in the oppression of LGBTQ+ folks. The authors of this paper have taken steps to address intersecting identities; however, to maintain a problem-solving oriented scope closely tied to consultation, this paper treads lightly on issues of intersectionality and has not adopted an intersectional lens as a whole. The following paper attempts to offer policy solutions in the context of broad and complex topics and, as such, there are still many important issues to be discussed. This paper does not claim to serve as a comprehensive list of challenges faced by all student s who identify as LGBTQ+, nor as an authoritative description of the nature of these problems. Instead, it intends to serve as a first step towards introducing improvements.
LGBTQ+.
hand, government control of universities raises serious concerns about the institutional autonomy that safeguards the ideals of academic freedom and innovation. On the other, given that public investment in higher education exceeds $8,000 per student, the public has a right to know where, for what and how tax dollars are being spent. Over time, the Ontario university system has developed a series of accountability mechanisms that have attempted to acknowledge both realities. While these initiatives have been worthwhile, the results have not been entirely effective or accountable. Moreover, they do not adequately provide an avenue for quality improvement. To address these shortcomings, this paper makes recommendations for changes to current accountability mechanisms
that will allow a greater degree of transparency in the system, but will also move universities towards certain public goals.