In perhaps the most confusing decision since Bush picked Cheney, the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) decided to mildly scold Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) for "[discriminating] against Julie Catalano based on sexual orientation." But the ruling was so perplexing that a team of lawyers, ethicists, and mathematicians probably couldn't explain it with a week's work.
The TCUJ, no doubt, had a very difficult task. Asking students to decide whether Tufts' non-discrimination policy is violated by a religious group's rules, is a nearly impossible question for philosophers, let alone college students. As a former TCUJ member, I can't help but sympathize with the Judiciary in such a high-pressure case.
In a Letter to the Editor in Wednesday's Daily, Lecturer Jonathan Strong says he's angry that Tufts wants to discuss homosexuality as a "value." No debate should ever be quashed on a college campus, but Strong is right in arguing that the TCF issue should not be looked at as a referendum on homosexuality. The issue extends far beyond people's thoughts on homosexuality to encompass a discussion about balancing religious freedom with a community member's right not to be discriminated against.
As with any elected body, the TCUJ is not above reproach. But the passion and complexity of the issue make it one reaching far beyond the jurisdiction of a student court, and for that, their errors should be forgiven.
The TCUJ's finding includes notable contradictions. In its first motion, the Judiciary asserts that the TCF did not discriminate when it denied Julie Catalano a position on the basis of her sexuality, because the decision was exacerbated by external factors: "...The decision does not reflect discrimination against Ms. Catalano, but instead was due largely to outside influences such as media attention and the desire to not set a large-scale precedent."
But in the second motion, the TCUJ decided unanimously that TCF did discriminate against Catalano because of inconsistencies in who can and cannot be an organizational leader. In their rationale, the TCUJ asserts that because Catalano and a leader of the group "held the same views on homosexuality... the only differentiating factor between the two is their sexual orientation."
Either TCF did violate the discrimination policy or it didn't; the Judiciary can't have it both ways. The point the TCUJ is seemingly trying to make is that TCF didn't exclude Catalano with malicious intent. But the fact that so much confusion still dominates discussion after a six-page decision proves that the issue was too difficult for students to comprehend.
The University has long debated the TCF issue internally, with its lawyers, advisors, and high-ranking administrators. Since the issue is so complex and will affect students for many years, the administration should, in this rarest of circumstance, intervene in a student life problem by considering a change in the structure of student groups.
A proposal discussed by the administration last year and over the summer would have separated the recognition of religious organizations. The details of this plan were never worked out nor made to fit with current Tufts policy. And discussion has stopped since the case was remanded to the TCUJ. It seems that supporters of administrative intervention exist in Catalano's camp, though, as a petition currently circulating directly asks Ballou to correct what they call a fundamental TCUJ error.
The TCUJ's hands were tied in this case because it could not legislate - only interpret. And no TCU constitutional amendment nor TCUJ decree could rectify this situation properly. The administration, on the other hand, has the power to revise policy to account for the opposing rights of non-discrimination and religious freedom. Administrators, not students, must do some shuffling to account for the long standing, but little talked about American position that religious groups are afforded rights that other groups are not.
The administration should not have passed the buck back to the students, instead they should have stolen the buck by implementing a system like one where religious groups are recognized separately, as some schools already utilize. Religious groups have always been treated differently in the United States. The very fact that cases such as school prayer and bible clubs dominate court dockets, proves this point.
People who call for punitive damages, or punishment of TCF as the answer, would be better served trying to work out a way for both tolerance and religious independence to coexist. By simply asking that TCF be de-recognized, a larger issue is swept aside. The administration was constructive in its thoughts about creating a new category for religious groups. While it isn't the only answer, and may not even be the right answer, a creative administrative response is the way this dilemma will be solved.
Neither major group in this fight, the TTLGBC or the TCF, is composed of bad people: just students with conflicting beliefs about fundamental rights. Past all the formal proceedings, lie real answers. The administration has a strong, albeit very difficult, role to play in this process. Reopening its exploration of creating a separate category for religious organizations and continuing to foster worthwhile dialogue with compromise as the focus, would show it's ready to step up the plate on a most serious issue.
