I wish to clarify a paraphrase of a quote of mine from a recent article in the Daily that was taken out of context ("BC students seek to include sexual orientation in policy," March 28). The article said "there is the possibility of BC being legally obligated to support a pro-abortion group on its Jesuit campus, based on a revised nondiscrimination policy." I do not believe this paraphrased example accurately portrayed the complexity of the situation and the University's position.
The President of BC believes that by including "sexual orientation" in the university's non-discrimination policy the University would be forced to recognize a gay advocacy student group. This reasoning is false and completely lacks basis. For example, BC does not have to recognize a women's pro-choice group on campus, even though "sex" is included in the current non-discrimination policy, due to Catholic teachings.
Similarly, if "sexual orientation" were included in the non-discrimination policy, the university would not have to recognize a pro-gay rights group that did not adhere to Catholic doctrine. BC would never recognize (nor be legally obligated to recognize) a student group that did not uphold Catholic principles.
Catholic teachings state that gays and lesbians "should not be objects of discrimination, injustice or violence." The Conference of American Catholic Bishops said in 1987 that "All of God's sons and daughters, all members of our society, are entitled to the recognition of their full human dignity." The vast majority of Boston College's student body believes that sexual orientation should be included in the university's notice of non-discrimination, and the Catholic notion of valuing the dignity and equality of all individuals supports its inclusion.
I hope that these clarifications help and that members of the Tufts community remain interested and supportive of our efforts.
Michael J. Yaksich
Director of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender issues, Boston College
