Last month, the Committee on Student Life revised its policy on student religious and philosophical groups, no longer allowing religious groups to apply for a "justified departure" from the University's non-discrimination policy. This has sparked discussion and debate on campus, including a Feb. 24 Daily op-ed written by Edward Lowe and David Foresy entitled "Compatibility between non-discrimination and religious inclusion."
The authors of the op-ed agree with the premise that no group, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, or any other facet of identity. They argue, however, that student religious groups should be able to exclude non-believers from their leadership. In their particular case, they argue that their ability to prevent non-Christians from running for leadership positions is vital to their integrity as a Christian group.
It is completely reasonable for a Christian group to want Christian leaders; however, the authors' insistence that they need to restrict the right to run for election to Christians raises some questions. First, why do they deem this necessary? Since ICF is now a student-led group, why can they not trust their fellow students and group members to elect a leader, most likely a Christian, who is in line with the group's beliefs? As Alva Couch, the faculty co-chair of the CSL, asked in a March 3 Daily article entitled, "New CSL policy allows election of student leaders to rely on democratic process," "Do they really feel so insecure about the democratic process that they feel they have to impose controls on it?" It seems self-evident that a Christian group would elect Christian leaders. Thus, a policy of excluding non-Christians from leadership seems unnecessary. This raises another question: Do certain members of the group wish to restrict the definition of what a "Christian" is?
The authors themselves acknowledge that there are "several thousand different denominations of 'Christians' out there" and that "the church as a whole has a wide variety of opinions on how to run Christian organizations." They explain that Christian organizations have a variety of opinions for LGBTQ people's involvement in leadership, and that, therefore, it would be unethical and dishonest for a "non-denominationally Christian" group to exclude queer people from leadership positions. Nonetheless, to me, the preoccupation with requiring all those running for election to be Christian demonstrates a desire for certain members of the group to narrowly define "Christianity." This is a slippery slope. While the authors of the op-ed disavow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I worry that ICF - and any other Religious and Philosophical Student Organization (RPSO) - could potentially use this policy of only allowing "Christians" to run for office to exclude LGBTQ students and any other students not in line with their beliefs, claiming that these students are not truly "Christian."
I also wonder what effect this will have on converts - those who are in the process of converting to Christianity or those otherwise exploring their faith. While these students could join other Christian groups on campus, it would be a shame if they were excluded from the religious community in which they fit best, which could be ICF. I understand that the authors are advocating for non-Christians to be excluded from leadership, not membership. Nonetheless, this strict distinction between "Christians" and "non-Christians" might be alienating for students whose spiritual journey has not yet - and maybe never will - led them to identify as "Christians." I worry that this policy could create a hierarchal system in which certain people are deemed more "Christian" than others. The authors write, "our university (a notoriously irreligious university at that) is now determining what it deems legitimate and illegitimate ways to practice faith." I would argue that this determination of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" is precisely what the authors are advocating for, the only difference being that ICF would do the determining, not the university.
How would ICF define "Christianity" and who would be in charge of these decisions? The arbitrator would have to label some practices as "legitimate" and others as "illegitimate." There are many different ways to practice religion and one person's spiritual practice might not translate as religious - or specifically "Christian" - to another person. Thus, students who identify as Christian could be denied leadership positions - and even the opportunity to run for such positions - because someone else deems their practice of Christianity "illegitimate."
As a side note, I strongly disagree with the assertion that Tufts is a "notoriously irreligious university" and think that this line of thinking stems from the authors' arbitrary and limited view of what constitutes religion and spiritual practice. Secondly, as long as the Tufts administration is not suppressing religious expression and practice - which I argue it is not - the religiosity of our student body is irrelevant. Many people on campus live very rich, irreligious lives and I would never label their very existence "notorious."
I would like to close on a more personal and hopefully more positive note. The authors of the op-ed voice dismay that no one took note of ICF's decision to dissociate from InterVarsity. I would like to do that now. I am actually a former member of the heavily InterVarsity-influenced Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF), the group from which the independent, student-led ICF emerged. I had many positive, spiritually formative experiences in TCF. Throughout my freshman year, TCF's friendly atmosphere made my transition to Tufts much easier, as it provided me with a religious community - something that I had never found outside of my hometown and my family. However, during my sophomore year, I decided I had to leave TCF. The restrictions which InterVarsity placed upon TCF, most notably the stipulation that all its leaders had to practice "chastity" and that same-sex relationships were inherently unchaste, ran counter to my values, many of them motivated by my own religious beliefs. InterVarsity stifled student voices and created an environment in which I did not feel comfortable. I am so pleased that ICF has dissociated from InterVarsity and become more student-centered. I am heartened by the contributions that ICF has already made toward strengthening Tufts' interfaith community, including co-sponsoring the recent Interfaith Open Mic Night. I applaud ICF for taking this first step toward creating a more open, welcoming space for all Christians, and all those interested in Christianity, to explore their faith. I urge its current leaders to complete this process by instituting open elections, free of restrictions.
