Christian groups, schools clash over non-discrimination

Students from a Christian group at Rutgers University have sued the school in a case reminiscent of the battle between the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) and the Tufts Community Union Senate Judiciary (TCUJ) in the fall of 2000.

Rutgers decided in Sept. 2002 that InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship's constitutional right to choose its leaders based on religious beliefs, specifically views on homosexuality, violated the school's non-discrimination policy.

During a periodic re-approval of student groups' constitutions, Rutgers officials demanded that the Fellowship include the university's non-discrimination statement in its constitution. "Membership shall be open to all Rutgers University students and must comply with federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of... religious affiliation," the statement reads.

InterVarsity, an evangelical ministry organization that has 34,000 members in chapters on 560 campuses nationwide _ including TCF _ then sued Rutgers in hopes of re-recognition. The suit, filed at the end of last year, alleges that Rutgers violated the Fellowship's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion when it suspended the group's funding and recognition.

For Tufts juniors and seniors, these occurrences bring back memories from the spring semester of 2000. In April 2000, TCF denied then junior Julie Catalano _ who was openly homosexual _ a leadership position because her views on homosexuality differed from those accepted by the group.

The TCUJ quickly de-recognized the group. Just before the end of the school year, the Committee on Student Life (CSL), in response to an appeal by the TCF, ordered that the TCUJ re-evaluate the case in the fall.

The final TCUJ ruling, issued in Oct. 2000, stated that the TCF had indeed violated the University's non-discrimination policy, but at the same time agreed to re-recognition on the grounds that groups had the right to select their leaders based on beliefs.

Even some outside of the religious community have criticized an all-encompassing non-discrimination policy. Making such policies mandatory would require "a Democratic club to allow a Republican president, a Jewish group to allow a Holocaust-denying president, and a Muslim group to accept a leader who believes in Christianity, animism, or voodoo," columnist Jon Leo wrote in the Jan. 13 issue of US News & World Report.

There are two major differences between the Tufts and Rutgers cases, according to Sarah Barga of InterVarsity. "First, Tufts _ to its credit _ had in place appeal and hearing procedures that gave us an opportunity to make our case to the Tufts community. Rutgers did not give us that same opportunity," Barga said.

Secondly, "as a private institution, [Tufts] can... define its own mission and message," Barga said. "We simply tried to explain to the Tufts community that evangelical Christians had a voice and message that contributed to campus diversity and to the free exchange of ideas."

Tufts' status as a private institution gives the University a considerable amount of flexibility, since it "can uphold or deny religious freedom at will, said Lynn Wartschow, one of the senior leaders of TCF. Tufts could choose "to affiliate religiously or in other ways show religious or anti-religious partiality," Wartschow said.

Unlike at Rutgers, a public institution, a lawsuit against Tufts never materialized. "So long as we had that opportunity to persuade the University community that TCF had something to contribute and was not guilty of the charges filed against it, I can honestly say that TCF did not consider filing a lawsuit," Barga said.

The conflict at Rutgers was not resolved so smoothly. One of the Rutgers chapter's senior leaders, Michelle DeRitter, wrote an open letter on the group's website to protest its de-recognition. "We did not agree with the non-discrimination statement because our faith is central to our lives, and we will not deny the importance of our faith to fit within the University's vision of an acceptable student group," DeRitter wrote.

The Rutgers case is only the most recent example of the intensifying struggle between InterVarsity chapters and colleges and universities across the country, according to several recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

On Dec. 10, 2002, the administration of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill demanded that its Christian Fellowship amend its constitution for the same reasons. After the Rutgers case was filed and rumors of a possible suit against UNC began to circulate, the administration backed off of its case and allowed the group to remain funded.

Matters came to a head at Central College in Iowa when its fellowship asked for the resignation of one of its leaders who had recently revealed his homosexuality. After a month of deliberation, the student government voted in late Sept. 2002 nearly two to one to continue to recognize the group.

The situations at the other schools have not come up during TCF meetings, according to Wartschow. "We have on occasion prayed for other fellowships undergoing difficulties on their campuses, but that has been the extent of our discussion," Wartschow said.