Painting the cannon: an age-old Tufts tradition meant to bring groups together and celebrate the interests they share. A symbol of Tufts spirit. But this past Monday, the cannon once again became a weapon of destruction, intended to destroy a group with the power of an idea. "TCF is unsafe."
This concept has been planted in the hopes that it will color the perceptions of everyone who is unfamiliar with the issue to which it refers. This tactic assumes that Tufts students are easily swayed by buzzword laden slander. I will not make that assumption, but will ask the Tufts community to approach this issue with intellectual integrity and respectful openness for all positions.
Here is a brief history of the issue to which the cannon slander refers: Last semester the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) was formally accused of violating Tufts' anti-discrimination policy. The complaint was made by a junior in the fellowship who was an active member for the previous three years. She claimed that she had been denied a leadership position for the following year on the basis of her homosexual orientation. A major campus-wide controversy broke out over the issue, seen most notably in a heated debate during a panel discussion on "Homosexuality and Religion" held by the University chaplains.
The following night the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) held an unannounced "emergency meeting" and, declaring that a formal hearing was unnecessary, voted 4-1-1 to "de-recognize" TCF, thereby stripping it of its funding and the right to reserve rooms, promote activities on campus, and use the Tufts name. Following an appeal by TCF, the Committee on Student Life (CSL) reversed the decision on procedural grounds on May 16th.
Those are the facts of the case, but the truth of the issue has been lost in a tangled mess of conflicting convictions and misunderstood beliefs. Was the student discriminated against? Is TCF bigoted and homophobic? Is it really that simple? The answer is a resounding "no," though the chalkers and painters of the cannon would have you believe otherwise.
Toward the end of last semester, the student came to the TCF Senior Leaders to inform them that she was bisexual (which some but not all of the leadership team had been aware of as early as her freshman year) and that her religious beliefs on homosexual practice had changed (practice meaning any active pursuit of a homosexual relationship). She said she no longer believed that homosexuality was a sin or that it should be struggled against, and requested that this change in her beliefs not be a factor affecting her leadership status in TCF. Her expectation was that any problem that arose would be a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sexuality and in violation of the University's anti-discrimination policy.
The TCF Senior Leaders discussed the issue for five weeks before deciding that, while her involvement in TCF was certainly welcome and desired, inviting her into a leadership position would require affirming her belief which was not something they could do.
Why was this decision made? The simplest answer is that the student was not offered a leadership position because of a significant difference in her religious beliefs on homosexual practice. But this explanation raises more new questions than it answers. What are the expectations of leaders in a Christian community? How and when can different religious beliefs coexist within a religious organization? Why is the distinction between homosexual orientation and practice relevant? These are complex issues with a long history of disagreement that will not be resolved in the remainder of this article. I would like to highlight a few points in the hopes that further dialogue will bring increasing clarity.
One: practice vs. orientation. Homosexuality is often referred to as an identity. The Christian belief holds that our identity is found in God alone as creatures made in His image (Gen. 1:27). Because we are sinful beings, there are parts of our "natures" which should not be embraced simply because we have an orientation (or genetic predisposition) towards them. Alcoholism is such an example which most of society agrees on (homosexuality is a far more complex issue, so this is raised merely to illustrate the point, not to form a comparison). Thus it is not sinful to have an orientation towards something sinful or to struggle with it, but to accept it defies God's stated intention for human behavior.
Two: non-denominational vs. ecumenical. TCF has no religious denominational affiliation. However, it does follow the "evangelical" (a term unrelated to "evangelistic") Christian tradition which emphasizes the authority and relevance of scripture as divinely inspired and the center of our understanding of God and His intent for our lives. TCF's distinctly evangelical character distinguishes it from other groups such as the Orthodox Christian Fellowship, Protestant Student Fellowship, and the Catholic Center. "Ecumenical" describes religious institutions which are more all-embracing of all beliefs as equally valid and true.
Three: Biblical interpretation vs. Relativism. While there are many interpretations of certain passages of scripture as well as general theological doctrines, all interpretations are not equally valid. We do not claim to have exclusive knowledge of what interpretations are correct and which are misperceptions, but we believe that actively seeking the truth and acting on it is an essential part of Christian living. Thus for Tufts to force ecumenical acceptance of any and all interpretations is an act of relativistic indoctrination which violates freedom of religion.
So I return to the original question, "Is TCF unsafe?" This allegation is inaccurate, and manipulates a loaded word to exploit the connotations it evokes. The truth is that the student had been a loved and accepted member and leader in TCF for the previous 3 years. Members and leaders within TCF were aware of her struggles with a homosexual orientation and sought to help her in that struggle in any way they could. She was not rejected or discriminated against. When she announced her beliefs on homosexual practice, leadership became a complicated issue, but her membership and involvement were constantly encouraged and desired, even throughout TCF's defaming and de-recognition.
I believe this issue presents a unique opportunity for mutually respectful dialogue on a controversial issue and sincere attempts to understand beliefs and perspectives which are radically different from our own. We have a chance to present a picture of Tufts as a place where diversity is more than just a list of statistics. Or we can wage a war of slander and paint the campus with intolerance. I hope there will be many who will enter this controversy with an open mind and a desire for meaningful and respectful dialogue.
Jon Crowe is a senior majoring in international relations. He is also a Senior Leader in the Tufts Christian Fellowship.
