On Sunday night, the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate rejected a resolution that would have encouraged the TCU Judiciary and other on?campus organizations to interpret the university's non?discrimination policy in a way that gives groups leeway when selecting their leaders. Critics of the resolution on the Senate argued that the resolution was a reactionary measure prompted by the controversial complaint filed against the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) in November alleging that the group discriminated against LGBT?affiliated candidates for TCF leadership.
The Senate made the right decision in rejecting a resolution that would clearly have stood in direct conflict with the nondiscrimination policy. To begin with, the resolution was poorly timed. The Senators who submitted it should have waited until the ongoing investigation by the University Chaplaincy into TCF's leadership practices is complete. It makes little sense to change the way complaints of discrimination are handled when one such complaint is currently under review.
Beyond that, the resolution would have made evaluating complaints of discrimination an immensely complex task. If the TCF case comes before the Judiciary, which document should the Judiciary weigh more heavily? The policy that prohibits discrimination by student groups? Or the one that says groups should be given leeway in their adherence to the policy?
The resolution was couched as a loose interpretation of the nondiscrimination policy, but in reality, it would have completely undermined it. How can the policy be interpreted in a way that allows groups to be "consistent with their beliefs" if those beliefs are discriminatory? Discrimination of any kind is indefensible - even if it's rooted in a group's deeply held beliefs.
Even leaving aside last semester's controversy surrounding TCF, we would not support this resolution, because the result could be that students pay to fund an organization that in turn discriminates against them. Every student on campus pays the student activity fee, and the sum of that fee is given to the Senate to distribute to groups on campus as it sees fit. If a group receives funding from the Senate, every student on campus is paying for it, albeit indirectly.
Because all groups are supported by students' money, university policy must apply to all student groups equally. Handing religious organizations on campus a loophole to bypass the non?discrimination policy while continuing to provide them funds under Senate rules simply isn't fair. If indeed TCF practices discrimination, students on campus should not be forced to fund the group.
The greater issue is students' relative control over how their money is spent. Students pay an activities fee of one flat amount. The Senate then hands it out based on how the Senators vote. Most students find nothing wrong with this model because of the policies to which all groups eligible for money are held - non?discrimination being one of them.
TCF members are completely free to hold their beliefs and conduct their affairs in accordance with those beliefs. However, if the actions resulting from that belief system contradict the values that the university agrees to abide by, then the group should surrender university funding.
Every on?campus organization that accepts funds from the Senate should commit to being inclusive of all members of the community. The Senate resolution would have undermined that commitment, and we commend the Senate for rejecting it.
