The Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ)'s ruling on a complaint filed against the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) re-ignited a six-month-old debate on campus this week. The complexity of the TCUJ's decision, as well as its finding that Tufts' nondiscrimination policy does not protect beliefs, has united members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) community and other groups in a call to strengthen Tufts' stance on discrimination.
While neither party involved in the case has announced an intention to appeal the decision, other members of the Tufts community are continuing the debate. Members of the LGBT community as well as other minority and culture groups have expressed worries that the TCUJ has opened their members up to discrimination and are calling for extended protective policies from the administration. In the last few days, the groups banded together to form Tufts Students Against Discrimination (TSAD), which will hold a rally on Monday on the library roof to convey its message to the administration and the community.
"As we stand right now, Tufts' nondiscrimination policy has been completely voided. No one is safe anymore," said Tufts Transgendered, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective co-coordinator Mike Lambert. "We're in the process of forming an alliance among culture groups on campus to prove our solidarity and to prove that all of us, no matter what our race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, are outraged and will not stand for discrimination."
The TCUJ found that TCF discriminated against Julie Catalano based on her sexual orientation because it treated her differently than a heterosexual member of the group who also believes that homosexuality is acceptable under Christian law. However, the TCUJ said that student organizations do have a right to set a standard of beliefs for their members, as long as a group applies those standards to everyone, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.
This ruling has caused an uproar in the Tufts community, and critics of the TCUJ's ruling say it undermines the nondiscrimination policy by allowing groups to discriminate as long as they do so equally.
TCUJ members feel that they were asked to judge whether the TCF violated Tufts policy, not their personal moral standards, and that they are being unfairly blamed for the policy's ambiguities.
"I'm surprised and disappointed at the illiteracy rates at this university. Apparently either no one has read our decision, or they simply don't understand it," said TCUJ member Michael Ferenczy. "We did not condone discrimination against homosexuals, we said the policy did. But the student reaction I have heard is surprisingly ignorant of that fact and even calls it a hate crime on the part of the J."
"The people may think that we've interpreted the policy incorrectly, but the mere fact that we could interpret it at all vindicates our assertion that it wasn't clear enough in the first place," he said. .
"A lot of people are thinking of the issue in their hearts, and they are not thinking about the fact that when we are elected to the J, we have to make decisions according to policy and not what we think is right," TCUJ Chair Robyn Herzog said. "I may not blame people for thinking the way they do, but I don't think they're stepping in our shoes and seeing how we have to interpret things."
The TCUJ hearing was closed at Catalano's request, and members of the Judiciary feel that the lack of public knowledge about the proceedings has contributed to the anger over the decisions. "It makes it difficult that this hearing was a closed hearing, so that way people outside of it don't know all the evidence that was given and could more easily fall back on the emotions," Herzog said. "If it were an open hearing, more people could see the evidence at hand and therefore see logically how our decision was arrived at."
The TCUJ recommended that the administration revise its nondiscrimination policy to more clearly delineate the distinction between discrimination and freedom of beliefs. Thus far, administrators have been fairly silent about their plans to deal with the controversy, saying that they are taking time to gauge student reaction, opinion, and concerns before they decide to act.
"I and a lot of other people are still absorbing the TCUJ ruling, which was thoughtful and took a lot of work. So, I am still chewing on this," Provost Sol Gittleman said.
Gittleman explained that the University's nondiscrimination policy is a close reflection of the federal mandate on the issue, except that it extends coverage to sexual orientation. President John DiBiaggio echoed Gittleman's statement in an e-mail to the entire student body sent yesterday morning.
The difficulty in forming policy comes in balancing a group's right to set its own standards of belief with students' right not to be excluded by those beliefs. University Chaplain Revered Scotty McLennan explained that the issue is about religion freedom as much as it is about nondiscrimination.
"We have two fundamental rights in conflict, and so we need to do the tough work of figuring out the best way to accommodate those rights. I don't think that's by saying one right simply trumps and eliminates the other," he said.
Members of the TSAD and the LGBT community have pointed out that the TCUJ's ruling opens the door for groups such as a white supremacist group to receive recognition on campus and funding from the student activities fee. They say that they are not trying to prevent TCF from existing, but simply do not want their money used to support a group that they feel is harmful and exclusionary.
"Everybody needs a home, just not at the expense of our nondiscrimination policy," Lambert said.
