Tufts Christian Fellowships (TCF) decision yesterday to forgo seeking re-recognition brings some degree of closure to the ongoing debate over the groups right to require a specific belief system of its leaders. TCF or however it will be known now after losing the rights to use Tufts name has made an explicit choice to align themselves with its parent organization, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, and avail itself of the requirements of the TCU Constitution in accepting de-recognition. In doing so, TCF has also issued, at least implicitly, yet another blow to the already suspect credibility of the Committee on Student Lifes (CSL) polarizing decision in December to allow religious groups to exempt themselves from universitys nondiscrimination policy.
In an email to the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Judiciary explaining their decision, group leaders objected to the exemption in opaque terms, confusingly citing its differing stance on the distinction between sexuality and sexual expression formally into the fold of the debate for the first time since the policy was announced in December. The policy, they write, does not allow us to make the distinction between sexual orientation and expression that we hold. The seemingly arbitrary, sudden arrival of this admittedly crucial detail into the debate, while welcome, is surprising and seems to bypass the more relevant issues TCF and the rest of campus is justified in having with the new policy.
Regardless of its reason, the fact that TCF has flat-out rejected the CSLs mind-boggling decision only adds to the legitimacy of arguments against its implementation. The likelihood that the CSL decision will be altered or rejected, however, is slim: After being asked in a TCU Senate resolution to vote on the policy, a committee of Arts and Sciences and Engineering faculty doesnt even want to let the faculty consider the motion. University President Anthony Monaco has declined to voice a harsh word against the policy despite its obvious problems, among which the most obvious is its seeming endorsement of a recognized student groups right to discriminate.
Given that TCF has accepted its new status as a non-recognized group in exchange for being able to keep its InterVarsity-approved constitution intact, there is also an opportunity here: Those Evangelical Christians on campus whose beliefs do not align with TCFs now have an opening to create a more inclusive group whose leadership criteria and teachings are less limited in scope. This opening existed before, certainly there is no immediately apparently limit on the number of Evangelical groups allowed to exist at one time on the Hill but having the real or perceived competition of TCFs presence in the TCU-recognized pool may make the process of creating a new group less intimidating.
In sum, TCFs rejection is another referendum on the justified exemption decision and merits introspection on the part of the CSL as to its rationale for tolerating discrimination of any kind.
