To the Editor:
In response to Ben Oshlag's Viewpoint yesterday, ("Misunderstanding discrimination," 10/19) I would just like to say that he completely and utterly missed the entire point. He quoted me as saying, "...right now the Tufts policy isn't clear enough," and responded by saying "How unclear is 'recognized organizations may not discriminate...'?". Mr. Oshlag, I would like you to pause for a moment and think about this statement that you took so blatantly out of context: if the policy only said "recognized groups may not discriminate," that would mean that, for example, Cheap Sox would have to accept anyone who auditioned and could not discriminate against bad actors, or that The Tufts Daily would have to print every article that they receive, no matter the quality, in order to not discriminate against bad writers.
Does this sound acceptable to you? No, of course not, which is why the second half of the policy, which you left out of your Viewpoint, states that you cannot discriminate "based on [among other things] sexual orientation..." and it is there that the issue lies. The TCUJ at no time questioned the definition of "discrimination" as you claim. Rather, it is our interpretation of the word "orientation" that started this debate. Through this ruling we have not opened Tufts up to all forms of discrimination; we have merely pointed out that Tufts policy, the way we read it, does not protect beliefs. If you disagree with our definition of "orientation," fine, that is your right. However, any other arguments against us stem from flat out ignorance.
Alison Clarke, LA '03
Member of the TCUJ
