First and foremost I would like to thank Jon Halpert and Adam Ross for leaving the trappings of the silent majority and becoming involved in policies that affect their lives ("An open letter to the Tufts Community," 12/5). I strongly believe (but I don't accept) that people should be involved in shaping the policies that affect their lives. I would also like to thank Halpert and Ross for joining the civil discussion about the nondiscrimination policy, a discussion that has been ongoing since Julie Catalano filed a discrimination complaint against the TCF.
I regret that you missed the discussion in Metcalf about the case during last year's spring semester. I regret that you didn't read the numerous Viewpoints that have constantly discussed this issue. I regret that you did not interact with anyone during the vigil during the second hearing of the case this year. I regret that you did not discuss the issue with any TSAD members while they were asking for letter signatures. I regret that you didn't talk to any TSAD members while they tabled in the dining halls. I regret that you didn't come across any TSAD members as they passed out literature and were more than willing to talk about the issue.
I'm sorry that you missed these activities, but to say that, "...TSAD does not wish to have a civil discourse on this issue," is absolutely absurd. Civil discourse has been going on since the day this issue began, and TSAD members have been participating in it since the beginning.
Since you missed all of our civil discourse - and I'm sure you're not alone - let me clarify some of TSAD's ideas for you. I apologize that somehow you slipped through the cracks of our education campaign. In the case of Julie Catalano vs. TCF, the TCUJ found the nondiscrimination policy to be ambiguous and separated one's identity from one's acceptance of identity. TSAD found this idea to be in discord with the spirit of the nondiscrimination policy, and since the TCUJ lacks the power to interpret the spirit of a university policy, TSAD turned to the administration to clarify this ambiguity.
That's all TSAD has wanted this whole time: a clear nondiscrimination policy. That's it. TSAD doesn't want to kick any group off of campus, attack religion, or institute the "thought police" on campus. Many members of TSAD are very religious, so it's absurd for Halpert and Ross to say, "TSAD has instead preferred to stand against religion." As an active member of TSAD I'm sure of this - everything else that TSAD "wants" is just rumor or false speculation.
TSAD began working on getting the University's clarification on the policy as soon as the decision came out; we didn't just decide to sit in a building at the end of the semester. We met with Dean Reitman and President DiBiaggio on numerous occasions. We showed student support for the issue through a rally and letter signing campaign. I apologize that the letter we asked people to sign was bland; however aesthetics was not our concern. Halpert and Ross's claim that we coerced people to sign the letter is ludicrous. People had a choice to sign that letter - many chose to sign and many did not.
The fact that 500 people showed up to the rally (We coerced them too, right?) shows that there was serious student concern. Even after the biggest rally in the past three years, the administration refused to listen to our concerns. DiBiaggio would not address the issue of acceptance of one's identity. After several failed meetings, we decided to do a more drastic action in order to have a serious dialogue with the administration. Just as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and even our forefathers adapted more drastic tactics when the authorities failed to listen, so did TSAD.
Even though Ross and Halpert say, "Don't protest, don't yell, don't chant, don't break the law; that is how tyranny is made," I have never heard a more baseless and utterly ridiculous statement at this university. It's not like Gandhi created the largest democracy in the world through protests, chants, yelling, and breaking the law; it's not like the achievements of the civil rights movement were won through protests, chants, yelling, and breaking the law; it's not like America gained its independence through protests, chants, yelling, and breaking the law. Wow, those protests sure caused a lot of tyranny.
Ross and Halpert, please do your research in order to avoid making blatantly false statements in the near future. Finally, due to the sit-in, the administration began to listen to us. As a result, Tufts clarified its policy through DiBiaggio's letter to the community. TSAD is also working to clarify the policy by including the policy in the TCU constitution, so the TCUJ and the CSL can better interpret the policy. I find it extremely insulting to President DiBiaggio that Halpert and Ross feel they should ignore the president's letter. The president had the ability to remove us from that building through other means. It seems they only want the letter ignored because they disagree with it. DiBiaggio knew what he was saying. His statement was the university's interpretation, and therefore it should dictate future policy.
However, the president's letter and Ross's and Halpert's viewpoint do bring up two valid issues, so let's clarify these questions:
Now that the university has issued its interpretation via the president's letter that "the nondiscrimination policy is understood to include such self-acceptance of identity," what exactly does this mean? I disagree with Halpert and Ross's asinine assertion that one's beliefs and one's acceptance of identity are the same and that self-acceptance dictates beliefs. It just doesn't make sense. Let's take the question, "Who do you believe should be president?" I know plenty of self-accepting Caucasians, homosexuals, Afro- Americans, and Christians who have very different beliefs of who they think should be president. I'm sure everyone reading this article knows self-accepting people of the same race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, color, religion, or disability who have different beliefs about who should be president. Self-acceptance merely means that you cannot discriminate against someone because she or he finds nothing wrong with her/his traits mentioned in the nondiscrimination policy.
Now that self-acceptance is covered in the non-discrimination policy, do groups have to have minority leadership? Absolutely not. All TSAD is trying to protect is the right of every student to try out for a leadership position. Members of any group are not bound by the nondiscrimination policy to vote or choose leaders without discrimination. TSAD is not trying to bring the thought police to campus. To say that this decision "...inhibit[s] the leadership selection of student groups and erode the freedom of belief that lies at the bedrock of our society" is preposterous. If anything, it will enhance leadership selection, because more people will have the chance to run, and one's belief is not being challenged at all. Leadership selection is not being challenged, but the idea that people can be refused the ability to participate in the process due to traits covered in the nondiscrimination policy is. TSAD is not dictating what anyone believes, but is instead making sure that everyone has equal access and leadership potential to student-funded organizations on this campus.
DiBiaggio's letter to the Tufts community achieved Ross and Halpert's goal of "...protect[ing] all people from systemic discrimination.... [and] preserv[ing] the freedom of belief upon which this nation was founded." Thankfully, the loophole opened by the TCUJ decision has been closed.
Roger Winn is a sophomore majoring in peace and justice studies and Russian literature and language.
