First and foremost, we would like to state that we are not speaking on behalf of any political, religious or Tufts-affiliated group. We are a non-partisan pair of students who seek a reasonable and fair solution in the matter of the non-discrimination policy. We are regular students who generally find no need to be "active" in the realm of public policy but who cannot sit by and condone the recent activities of the group known as TSAD.
It has come to our attention that the Committee on Student Life (CSL) will be meeting on Friday the 8th of December to discuss a proposal by TSAD that would essentially amend the non-discrimination policy. While the intention of the proposed amendment is grounded firmly in the liberal principles that we hope to embody as a community, the wording of the amendment and the methods by which it has been thrust upon the student body will only serve to erode those very principles. While we must protect all people from systemic discrimination, it is imperative that we preserve the freedom of belief upon which this nation was founded.
That being said, we will address the changes proposed in the amendment. The crux of the proposed amendment is that identity and beliefs pertaining to that identity are indistinguishable. TSAD has written this amendment using the buzzword "self-acceptance" instead of the word "belief," yet the meaning is no different. This implies that if you are gay, black, white or Christian, this identity will dictate your beliefs; you have no free will to choose for yourself.
This is clearly untrue. This amendment would prevent groups from selecting leaders based on their beliefs, as these beliefs could no longer be grounds for choosing candidates. This runs counter to logic, groups naturally select leaders who reflect the values and goals of that group with respect to their beliefs, attitudes and actions. TSAD views this as unfair discrimination; we view this as common sense. The proposed amendment will not help to change the perceived atmosphere of hate on campus but rather will inhibit the leadership selection of student groups and erode the freedom of belief that lies at the bedrock of our society.
The interests of the minority should not subvert the will of the majority. TSAD claims to speak for the student body but 20 protesters do not speak for the 4,000-plus students who attend this University. Their petition, although widely signed, was blandly written and signed only due to the coercive power of the accusation of bigotry. Just as coercion was used with the students, TSAD resorted to trespassing and intimidating rather than using reason and the force of their argument to impel the administration to consider and review the policy. This coercion of the administration goes against the principle that the administration should serve the entire student body. Unfortunately, President DiBiaggio capitulated to this pressure, and his e-mail has set a dangerous precedent. The sentiments expressed in this message got the protestors out of Bendetson, but this executive order should not dictate future policy.
Finally, TSAD does not wish to have a civil discourse on this matter. Instead they attempt, using the dirty politics of "activism," to foist their views upon an unsuspecting student body. TSAD's call to arms was to prevent religious groups from discriminating against homosexuals, yet the TCUJ have confirmed that all students are free to participate in any student group on campus. However, if a religious group feels that certain activities are not within the "moral bounds" of that religion, the group should not be forced to ignore this and promote them to a position of leadership.
Instead of working with religious groups to find common ground for the acceptance of homosexuality, TSAD has instead preferred to stand against religion in order to win a symbolic battle for liberalism over conservatism. This is not constructive in promoting acceptance of all peoples and creates more antipathy than solutions. It is not the place of TSAD to dictate what Christians should believe. TSAD should practice the tolerance they preach, instead of trying to drown out all opposition. Ours is a society where freedom and security must be balanced to protect the individual. Tufts must have an anti-discrimination clause. However, too strong or poorly worded a statement will only erode our freedom in the name of security. And without freedom, there can no security as no person will be safe in their belief.
We call on the silent majority, the reasonable, non-partisan, and uninvolved to demand more from this administration. Write Viewpoints, discuss with your friends, e-mail DiBiaggio, Dean Reitman, Senate Parliamentarian Ben Lee, and most of all e-mail the CSL (student representatives Shou Min Tan, Sam Dangremond, Amanda Berkowitz, and Marco Carbone).
Don't protest, don't yell, don't chant, don't break the law; that is how tyranny is made. Instead view both sides, insist that the Committee on Student Life also views both sides, and that freedom and security are balanced in any new amendments. We know who you are, the people who sit on their couches and read the news. Until today we were you. This is your call to arms. Stand and think, then be heard.
Jon Halpert is a sophomore majoring in chemistry. Adam Ross is a sophomore majoring in history.
