After a seven-hour hearing and a weekend of deliberations, the campus is presented with a fair but unclear ruling. Despite the structured, multi-motion organization of the TCUJ's ruling, it still fails to speak with one voice on the most basic question: did the TCF discriminate against Julie Catalano on the basis of her sexual orientation? After pondering the first two seemingly self-contradictory parts of the ruling for some time, I believe the Judiciary has in fact ruled clearly that including religious criteria in leadership selection does not constitute discrimination. Though I commend the TCUJ for the commitment it showed to uncovering the facts of the case and acting with integrity in its deliberations, I believe it misinterpreted a critical piece of evidence in its second motion.
In the first of the four motions, the Judiciary ruled that the TCF did not discriminate against Ms. Catalano in its vote on whether she could become a Senior Leader. The ruling states "The process used by TCF to choose their leaders is fair. Had this process been followed, Ms. Catalano would have been given the same consideration as any heterosexual candidate for leadership." This statement recognizes that the decision was based on religious beliefs, not her sexual orientation, and states that this does not violate the non-discrimination policy as it stands.
The second motion, however, states something entirely different, claiming that the TCF did discriminate against Ms. Catalano on the basis of her sexual orientation. The Judiciary states that the TCF held a double standard, refusing her leadership, but failing to impeach another Senior Leader who, it claims, shared her beliefs. Had this been the case, the ruling would have been just. However, the Judiciary's own rationale highlights the important distinction: "During the hearing, he was asked if it mattered to him, personally, that Julie intended to carry out, in practice, her sexual orientation. He responded, 'No.'" The TCUJ misinterpreted his testimony and confused his support of Ms. Catalano's leadership with support of her beliefs. He explicitly stated that he agreed with the other Senior Leaders on the question of the Bible's teaching on homosexual practice, but, for a period of time, he disagreed on how this should affect her leadership status. This is the "differentiating characteristic" between the former Senior Leader and Ms. Catalano, which the Judiciary claims does not exist.
Although we believe the Judiciary misread some of the evidence, the ruling fundamentally upheld the TCF's right to free practice of religion, including the use of religious beliefs in leadership selection. The ramifications of this decision go well beyond providing for the TCF's continued recognition, serving to protect the right of all groups to form around shared beliefs. The Judiciary should also be commended for addressing the ambiguity of the non-discrimination policy and its unclear relationship to religious freedom. Whether the policy requires clarification is a question for the administration to consider, but it is essential to be clear on both the intended goals and adverse consequences of any changes. If Tufts decides to alter the policy to enforce the dominant views on controversial issues such as homosexuality, then Tufts has taken a large step away from diversity and tolerance - the very virtues it was intending to protect. The TCF supports and has supported the non-discrimination policy and the principles behind it, and had already revised the constitution to make that support completely clear even before the hearing. We maintain that we did not violate the policy and did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Unless revisions prohibit religious groups from using religious beliefs as criteria for leadership, we will continue to support the policy and abide by it.
Yet the TCF views clarification of the Judiciary's ruling and constitutional revision as small matters next to the challenges that lie ahead. As the aftermath of the decision continues to play out and voices on both sides raise concerns over the ruling, it seems likely that the growing rift between the liberal and conservative voices - and, in particular, between members of the TTLGBC and the TCF - will only widen. Though we stand by our views because we believe them to be true, we are ever aware that they may come across as threatening, offensive, and personally hurtful. Despite the monumental barriers, we sincerely desire to create an atmosphere of mutual tolerance, open and civil dialogue, and, God-willing, eventually mutual respect for each other. These are the most important issues to be addressed, and unfortunately the most difficult.
I see two possible outcomes of the present controversy. We could continue to stand at a distance, misunderstanding and misrepresenting each other. We could continue to communicate with each other through impersonal viewpoints and offensive chalkings. The controversy would eventually die down with neither side able to claim the clear-cut victory they were hoping for, and we would continue on much the same, except with an increased mistrust and dislike for each other.
I believe there is another possibility. We accept coexistence with those who are different from us and whose beliefs may offend us - the coexistence we will all face when we leave the university microcosm. We seek to at the very least tolerate, then we seek to understand, then we seek to respect. Is this not the whole purpose of a university atmosphere of cultural, intellectual, and social diversity? Is tolerance and respect not what we pride ourselves on as socially and intellectually mature students? If Tufts seeks to prepare its students for leadership in a diverse and ever-changing world, that leadership must start by example. We must be the "light on the hill" the founders of Tufts envisioned.
Jonothan Crowe is a senior majoring in international relations. He is a TCF senior leader.
