October 17, 2000
Tufts University
FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE SOCIALISTS, AND I DID NOT SPEAK OUT BECAUSE I WAS NOT A SOCIALIST. THEN THEY CAME FOR THE TRADE UNIONISTS, AND I DID NOT SPEAK OUT BECAUSE I WAS NOT A TRADE UNIONIST. THEN THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS, AND I DID NOT SPEAK OUT BECAUSE I WAS NOT A JEW. THEN THEY CAME FOR ME, AND THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO SPEAK FOR ME.- PASTOR MARTIN NIEMOLLER
Dear Mom and Dad,
This package contains an enormous amount of information on recent events at Tufts involving hate and discrimination. I have decided to send them to you as I look to someone for guidance.
Last spring, a self-identified lesbian woman, Julie Catalano, ran for a leadership position in the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF). The group denied her the position on the basis of her sexuality, and its inconsistency with the teachings of the Bible. They argued that they welcomed all people, and discriminated against no one. Julie could be a part of TCF, but only if she agreed that homosexuality was sinful and prayed to change. Julie charged TCF with violating the University's non-discrimination policy.
A hearing was held and there appeared to be due process. So what is the problem? The TCUJ decided TCF did, in fact, discriminate and violate the non-discrimination policy, giving the reason that a previous straight leader had maintained the belief that homosexuality is okay, the same belief Julie Catalano holds. He could act as a leader, but Julie could not. Clearly they discriminated against her homosexuality, not her belief. TCF maintains Julie could well have been a leader if she denounced homosexuality as a sin and hence denounced herself. They assert they disagree with her belief, not her identity. The TCUJ read the non-discrimination policy to mean belief is separate from identity.
The TCUJ maintains self-acceptance is not covered by Tuft's non-discrimination policy. This is the problem. Identity and one's belief or acceptance of this identity is inseparable, but not so according to this interpretation of Tufts policy. Ultimately that policy, meant to protect us, in fact was used to condone harm.
Let me pause for a moment to let this sink in, and allow me to make an analogy that might make more sense. Imagine Tufts has an anti-Semitic group. According to this policy, as interpreted by the TCUJ, a Jew could run for leadership and be accepted, so long as that person denounce their religion and being as inferior. Is this okay? Denouncing one's own identity destroys self-worth, pride, joy, and acceptance. This can lead to depression, even suicide. It is commonly noted that LGBT youth attempt suicide three times more frequently than other youth. Why? Homophobia. The TCF needs to take responsibility for the effects of its homophobia. Any campus group that endangers the well-being, let alone life of a student has no right to university funding (your money!). I want nothing to do with this atrocity and think you would agree it should have nothing to do with this University.
The ruling by the TCUJ has nullified the non-discrimination policy, as it no longer covers the beliefs of any group on campus. Every group is now at risk. Tufts is allowing TCF actions based on homophobia to go unhindered. Let me draw another comparison. The KKK is allowed to exist on the basis of freedom of speech. Would Tufts allow the KKK to establish a place on this campus? I'll leave that to the administration to determine; my hunch is no. The KKK is destructive and harmful to other people and, as a private institution, Tufts can decide which groups to fund and which groups not to fund.
TCF has been preaching freedom of religion in many viewpoints in the Daily and Observer. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. No one is persecuting Christianity here. Members of the TCF can believe what they want, so long as they don't endanger the welfare of a member. The TCUJ provides the TCF with a way to discriminate without violating the non-discrimination policy. Basically, in order to maintain Tuft's name (and funding) TCF must become more consistently bigoted.
This is no longer about TCF or religion; it's about our policy. The non-discrimination policy must be changed or re-interpreted to understand the inherent link between identity and self-acceptance. It must be understood that they cannot be separated. The University needs to take some responsibility for what is happening on campus. If this campus values diversity, prove it! Stick up for that diversity. This policy reflects the University and its administration, and they need to take responsibility for this.
So, Mom and Dad, I write to you telling you what this campus has proposed to me and every other student affected by this decision. It feels so much bigger than me; it has to do with institutionalized homophobia and the hatred, anger, and ignorance of so many people. I write to you wondering what kind of response I will get. Honestly, I am really not at all sure what to expect. Will you say 'I told you so?' Maybe. You were right in saying that there is hatred, and anger, and ugliness in this world... for everyone, not just me. Life is hard. It's hard for everyone, but hiding from who you are can be worse, leading to self inflicted denial and hatred. I'll fight a fight that's been fought before, and I'm asking you to help. I'm hoping now Niemoller's quote is more than empty words. I'm hoping you will read it, and act. I know it was difficult when I came out to you; but it was you who taught me to love, respect, and accept myself. Thank you. I Love you.
Courtney
Courtney Young is a senior majoring in English.
