Though it may be over a year since the Tufts Community Union Senate meeting and Committee on Student Life (CSL) policy drama rocked our tiny Tufts campus, the CSL has finally decided to rescind its previous "Justified Departure" to the non-discrimination policy for student religious groups (now also including philosophical groups). While we support the belief that there are no legitimate grounds for discrimination in any student organization, we believe that there is a significant difference between discrimination due to individual sexual identity and religious leadership selection in a student-led religious group.
Let us clarify. We do not think any student group (or any legally recognized group anywhere) should have permission to discriminate against people based on any characteristics as outlined by the Office of Equal Opportunity.
There is a distinct difference, however, between discrimination and honest religious leadership. Let's take Christianity, for example, to explore this idea. With several thousand different denominations of "Christians" out there, the church as a whole has a wide variety of opinions on how to run Christian organizations. Many churches are openly accepting and encouraging of gay and lesbian leaders, while many others are not. If a student religious organization that was non-denominationally Christian were to exclude such leaders in its community, while still claiming to represent "Christianity" in its entirety it could easily be, and has been, argued that this action is discriminatory.
At the same time however, it would not be discriminatory for a religious organization to require its leaders to be of that particular religion. In fact, it would be entirely contrary to the purposes of a student religious group that actively practices that religion to elect leadership that does not believe in that religion. Would it be discrimination for the Roman Catholic Church to require its priests to be Roman Catholic? We don't think so. It would be dishonest for the Roman Catholic Church to claim that its leadership is open to all people of all religions and religious beliefs. In fact, appointing someone who was not a Roman Catholic would contradict the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church.
For a student group that discusses religion or engages in relevant cultural activities to exclude leadership or membership based on belief would be counterproductive. Student groups need a variety of ideas and perspectives to enhance the intellectual discussion. With a group that is unified around a common belief, and actively desires to practice it, there needs to be some leadership requirement to make leaders accountable to group members in their spiritual leadership and guidance. A student-led religious group in this position ought to have the right to select leaders that share the basic beliefs of that group. However, this group cannot exclude anyone from leadership in regards to matters of personal identity apart from religious conviction. We recognize and affirm that this stipulation does not allow for any sort of discrimination or exclusion based on sexual orientation or gender identification.
Now, given that there are real people who do actually believe that certain things are true and other things are not true (for example that Jesus Christ is Lord) these people ought to have a space on campus to come together and practice their belief. To exclude these individuals from joining together in the way that they desire to practice their faith would be discriminatory in that our university (a notoriously irreligious university at that) is now determining what it deems legitimate and illegitimate ways to practice faith. If a group will only appoint leaders that can agree to the basic tenets of Christianity, the Nicene Creed for example, then they are simply showing that they are a group who desires to earnestly grow in a particular religious perspective. The fact that this religious perspective is not a universally inclusive perspective, in that it claims that certain things are true and that others are definitively not, does not make it discriminatory any more than our chaplaincy's requirement that the Islamic chaplain be Muslim and that the Jewish chaplain be Jewish. Is the chaplaincy then discriminatory? No, it desires to foster an environment and provide resources and positive leadership to students of a particular worldview and perspective. To honestly do that would necessitate a leader who agrees with the basic tenets of that worldview.
In the case of the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF), the former policy that excluded students in sexually unchaste relationships (i.e. those that are sexually active heterosexual or homosexual relationships as defined by their former constitution) to become leaders would be discriminatory by our university's standards. Over six months ago, however, TCF (which is now known as the Interdenominational Christian Fellowship, ICF) significantly changed its constitution and leadership structure. We find it interesting that those quickest to cry foul have remained relatively silent on the fact that the fellowship officially disaffiliated itself from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in late September of last year and has made significant revisions to its constitution. It seems our university community is particularly gifted at pointing out problems, but woefully ill-equipped at finding practical and inclusive solutions for student-led religious groups.
We are thankful for a community here at Tufts that is so supportive of inclusion and against discrimination. At the same time, we believe the members of this particular fellowship and other religious groups that are actually practicing a particular religion should have the right to do so openly and honestly at our university, regardless of whether or not anyone else happens to disagree with that worldview. In a community that is led entirely by students in the practice of their faith, like ICF, and not by a university chaplain or an outside religious organization, requiring student leaders to espouse and advocate the basic tenets of that group's worldview is necessary to accomplish the group's purposes. The most important of these purposes are practicing that faith freely, openly and honestly. To require such a group to open its leadership to those who don't profess the faith that the group holds dear would essentially deny that group its right to earnestly practice its faith as a community.
In short, we agree that no student group should be allowed to discriminate in its leadership or membership. A clarification as to what is and what is not discrimination in student groups is necessary, as is a comprehensive policy to allow for student religious groups to be honest in their requirements for their leaders. This should be limited to the leaders supporting and agreeing to basic beliefs in order to spiritually lead that group only in the cases where leadership is entirely student-based. In religious groups in which leaders are directed by chaplains or private religious organizations, such requirements are not entirely necessary because these groups already have leaders of that particular faith. Furthermore, to prohibit such student religious organizations would be discriminatory, denying them the right to exist as legitimate groups on our campus because our community has deemed their practices of faith illegitimate.
Edward Lowe is a junior majoring in biology and Spanish. He can be reached at Edward.Lowe@tufts.edu. David Forsey is a junior majoring in mechanical engineering. He can be reached at David.Forsey@tufts.edu.
