College Media Network

LGBT referendum on discrimination misses TCU ballot

Michael del Moro

Print this article

Published: Friday, September 12, 2008

Updated: Friday, September 12, 2008

A referendum supporting an amendment to add more inclusive nondiscrimination language to the Tufts Community Union (TCU) constitution did not appear on the ballot during Wednesday’s election, despite the efforts of a sophomore senator sponsoring an initiative to place it there.

The referendum proposed the addition of the phrase “gender identity/expression” to two clauses in the TCU constitution that prohibit discrimination by recognized student organizations.

The Pachyderm, Tufts’ student handbook, already condemns harassment based on “race, religion, gender identity/expression, ethnic or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or genetics.”

Ryan Heman, the sophomore senator who spearheaded the referendum effort, feels the addition is necessary because he wants the TCU to catch up to official university policy as expressed in the handbook.

“We feel that basically a more inclusive nondiscrimination policy is always a good thing, and the students should always be more progressive than the university itself,” said Heman, who serves as the co-chair of the Senate’s Culture, Ethnicity and Community Affairs Committee. “Even though the university policy does kind of supercede the TCU constitution, we feel … that if there is a non-discrimination policy, it should be as inclusive as possible.”

Heman, who was the LGBT Center’s liaison to the Senate last year, and two other students, senior Evan Woods and sophomore Thomas Mann, wrote letters to the Senate proposing the new policy language before officially submitting the referendum to the Committee on Student Life (CSL) on Aug. 31.

In order to be eligible for placement on a campus-wide ballot, proposed referendums must have three sponsors and 250 signatures. In addition, the proposal requires approval from both the CSL, which decides whether it is in line with university policy, and the TCU Judiciary (TCUJ), which rules on whether the wording is fair. The Elections Commission then conducts an official vote on the referendum.

The TCUJ approved the language on Sept. 5, but members of the CSL indicated they would need to consult the entire committee before approving policy language.

According to CSL Co-Chair Calvin Gidney, an associate professor of child development, the committee decided not to review the language because they did not have a full group of students and professors. Until last week, three seats remained vacant; two have since been filled.

Heman admitted that it is “a little weird to be pushing something forward” so early in the semester, but said that “there is no discussion to be had” about what he calls a no-brainer language change. He said the CSL did not take the time to realize this.

“It kind of reflects badly on the priorities of the university that the LGBT community, the TCUJ, Tufts’ Election Commission and even the student body were mobilized behind this issue and in the end the CSL decided to shut it down,” Heman said. But he added that he did not think there was any “malicious intent.”

“We’re not trying to accuse the CSL of being outwardly malicious or outright disrespecting the LGBT community. … Nonetheless, the fact that the CSL couldn’t manage to approve pre-approved language, fully knowing that all we needed was their go-ahead, is just part of a trend of the administration disrespecting and ignoring the needs of LGBT students,” Heman later added in an e-mail.

Heman said the current clauses in the TCU constitution apply to sexual orientation but do not cover gender identity and expression, terms that apply to those who do not associate with either gender.

Gidney declined to comment on the proposed language itself but insisted the CSL would give it a “fair and unbiased hearing.”

The constitution allows for referenda to be put up for election at any point during the semester, but decisions on amendments to the constitution require a mandatory turnout of at least 25 percent of the student body, a number typically only seen during senatorial elections in September and April.

If proponents of the initiative were able to publicize it on a large scale, Gidney said it is “in the realm of possibility” that the referendum could receive enough votes at some point during the semester.

The referendum will likely be postponed until the spring elections, according to Heman. Even more inclusive policy language will be built in before then, he said.

Senator Chas Morrison, a sophomore, suggested adding “political affiliation” to the nondiscrimination clauses.

“It would have been great to have a vote,” Morrison said, but he added that the delay may facilitate a more comprehensive amendment to the constitution.

Comments

3 comments
Current CSL Member
Sat Nov 15 2008 03:01
Heman badly misrepresents the role of the CSL in this matter. The CSL did not yet have a quorum - not only were there 3 empty student seats on the committee, but the new faculty members on the committee had not yet received training on the committee policies and procedures, which is necessary before hearing cases.

Simply because the language was a "no-brainer" does not give members of the CSL to flaunt stated policy and procedure regarding referenda. If this was such a priority, it should have been completely in due time last year so that it could have been approved for the ballot last spring. In addition, the CSL has nothing to do with the administration - the only voting members on the committee are students and faculty, and the administration exerts absolutely no pressure on the CSL to drive its own initiatives.

Heman, by disrespecting the process, risks rendering the referendum he seeks to pass as invalid - which is clearly not ideal, and frankly, unnecessary. If the Senate wishes, this can be voted on before April if it is publicized to a significant extent.

As Heman gets older, he will realize that when wants to get something done in a system, you need to respect the rules and regulations by which that system operates, assuming such rules are not unduly unfair. The CSL operates by such rules.

Your name
Sun Sep 14 2008 16:27
Yes. It's too bad the Senate is worthless and does nothing productive.
Michael
Fri Sep 12 2008 12:23
If the Senate looked at past referenda, they'd see that they used to be held all throughout the year, not just at the Senate/President elections. Nor would they find that holding referenda with the President election guarantees the turnout number.