When the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) ruled Monday not to de-recognize the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF), it did so on the grounds that the TCF's members did not make the decision to deny Julie Catalano a leadership position. Rather, it was Jody Chang, the group's advisor, who forced TCF's hand. However, the TCUJ then opened the door for the TCF to continue its policy of excluding homosexuals from leadership positions by ruling that Tufts' non-discrimination policy does not prevent an organization from barring a specific group of people as long as they do so based on their beliefs.
The TCUJ centered this part of its decision on its interpretation of Tufts' non-discrimination policy, which it deemed "ambiguous." According to the Judiciary, the group's violation of the policy came not because it tried to exclude Catalano, but because it held a contradictory stance on how to treat members who accept homosexuality. TCF allowed a heterosexual member who disagreed with its stance to become a leader, but did not afford the same right to Catalano, meaning the discrimination came because of her sexual orientation.
The word in question, therefore, is "discrimination." Based on the TCUJ's ruling, discrimination can only occur when a group treats two people in the same situation differently. This is why TCF was guilty of discrimination when it allowed the heterosexual member, but not Catalano, to become a leader.
Following this line of reasoning all TCF would have to do to prevent Catalano, or any other homosexual, from being eligible for a leadership position would be to say that anyone who accepts homosexuality is not permitted to hold a leadership position. In other words, TCF did not discriminate enough. Had it chosen to say that everyone who accepted homosexuality would be ineligible to hold a leadership position, it would not have been caught in a contradictory situation, and, according to the TCUJ, would not have discriminated at all.
But this argument doesn't stop there. Instead, it leads down a slippery slope that quickly allows groups to bar anyone they want, as long as they do so consistently. The TCUJ, therefore, would find nothing wrong with a Student Activities Fee-funded chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan's beliefs would not be in violation of Tufts non-discrimination policy, because its policies do not fall under the TCUJ's definition of the word "discrimination." The Klan would only be discriminating if it did not exclude a particular group consistently.
As TCUJ member Eric Krause stated in Tuesday's Daily ("TCUJ rules TCF violated nondiscrimination policy," 10/17), "As long as their beliefs are held across racial, sexual, or religious boundaries, then it's all right. If the belief is applied equally to everyone, then it can be as morally corrupt as they want it to be, according to Tufts policy."
The Tufts policy, however, clearly states that "recognized organizations may not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national or ethnic origin, age, sexual orientation, disability, or an individual's previous affiliations in criteria for membership, assignment of voting privileges, or rank, except as otherwise provided by federal or state law or university policy."
How could this possibly be misconstrued to imply that discrimination only takes place in cases where people in the same situation are treated differently? That, however, is the TCUJ's interpretation of the word discriminate. And it is flat out wrong.
Yes, that is one type of discrimination, of discrimination on an individual level, but discrimination can also be categorical. While a group that categorically denies positions to African Americans, homosexuals, or even members of TCF, on any grounds whatsoever, including those based on beliefs, would be considered discriminatory by anyone with a reasonable amount of common sense, the TCUJ has ruled otherwise.
What kind of incompetence led to this conclusion? If the TCUJ does not even know the correct use of the word discriminate, what is it doing deciding such an important case? How could the Judiciary, after over five hours of deliberation, arrive at a decision that so fundamentally conflicts with the policy it is supposed to uphold? It claimed that the policy was ambiguous, but it only seems to be ambiguous if you can't find a dictionary.
TCUJ member Alison Clarke went so far as to say, "my role as a J member is to uphold Tufts policy, and right now Tufts policy isn't clear enough." How unclear is "recognized organizations may not discriminate...?"
Obviously, Tufts' system of judicial review has failed miserably. The TCUJ's ruling not only flies in the face of everything that Tufts' non-discrimination policy stands for, but also encourages groups to violate the policy. The TCUJ failed to uphold justice, and it left the situation worse than it started.
Whether this case needs to be appealed, the decision revisited, or the issue passed on to the administration, we must do something to rectify the situation. This verdict cannot stand, and we cannot allow others like it to follow.
All religious issues aside, if TCF really wants to exclude homosexuals, I have no problem with its doing so, just not with my money. But if TCF wants to receive funding from the Student Activities Fee, it must abide by Tufts' non-discrimination policy, which it clearly does not. The fact that the TCUJ ruled that it could continue to receive funding, and at the same time not allow self-accepting homosexuals to be leaders, is an example of grossly incompetent reasoning that must be corrected by people who know what they are doing.
Ben Oshlag is a senior majoring in philosophy and computer science. He is the managing editor of The Tufts Daily.
