To the Editor:
The removal of the ban on the Tufts Christian Fellowship by the Tufts Community Union Judiciary is a decision which exemplifies the University's inability to be an authoritative and effective presence on this campus. What the issue boils down to is whether the decision made by the TCF, to not allow a homosexual to fill a leadership position, was an extension of the their rights guaranteed under the First Amendment or rather a breach of the Tufts Anti-Discrimination Policy. According to the TCUJ, the TCF's actions were part of their religious beliefs and not rooted in the form of a discriminatory act. Is that then to say that all beliefs expressed to the public, in the form of speech, are to be fair game?
No. The freedoms granted under the Constitution are not absolute, which is echoed throughout many Supreme Court cases over the course of the past century. The reasoning for such dilution to this right is that such expressions can create imminent "clear and present" dangers. In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), it was the unanimous decision of the court that found that Charles Schenck's distribution of pamphlets, which opposed the United States' entry into WWI and promoted an end to the draft, not to be protected under the First Amendment. The rationale behind the decision stood that such a leaflet threaten the emergence of a clear and present danger which could subsequently create substantive evils during this time of war. The TCUJ's decision, similarly, creates a situation on campus which stunts the acceptance and the prospering of the homosexual community, creating such substantive evils. Such beliefs that downplay the equality of anyone on the Tufts campus, draws about an ignorance amongst all students alike. Social acceptance deteriorates and only encourages a mind-set which leads to more discrimination, hate, and violence.
It is sad to see a University who parades around over the fact that they are so "diverse" when in fact they ignore blatant breaches of their own Anti-Discrimination Policy, the grounding for much of the schools claimed diversity. As it is positive to see the amount of views represented throughout the Tufts campus, it is unacceptable for those views to affect the status of one person over another. The TCUJ has proved themselves ineffective in enforcing written policy which will in effect, hurt such groups as the LGBTCT drastically, and leave loopholes for further controversy to come.
Jesse Goldberg, LA '04
