Does anybody really understand the meaning of diversity and tolerance?

Clearly, there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the meaning of diversity and tolerance. Unfortunately, quite a few happen to attend our prestigious university. And lately, diversity and tolerance have become part of a feeling of negativity that is gaining strength on this campus. What I wish to do is point out the misunderstandings about the D&T combo that have become evident over the past few weeks.

First off, let's try and define diversity. Grouping together a bunch of definitions on dictionary.com, I'd say that diversity is the existence of a state of hetereogenioty at a particular point. In other words, diversity is when some part of something is a whole lot different. At Tufts, where diversity seems to be the University's favorite advertisement, there are indeed differences wherever you look, whether it exists in the form of nationality, religion, race, political views, interests, etc.

Alas, the world isn't a perfect place, and diversity is to blame. After all, if everybody were exactly the same, there'd be nothing to fight about. And if there were something to fight about, it would be because some difference had arisen (I dare you to try and think of a contradictory example). It doesn't mean that diversity has to result in fighting, but that fighting occurs out of some difference. So basically, since diversity exists on this campus, just like everywhere else in the world, there will be some occasional fighting. And guess what? That's normal!

Lately, I've noticed that a few people who oppose same sex marriage don't seem to grasp this concept. They claim that because most of the people on campus think that they're being a homophobe, a religious zealot, or just an idiot, diversity isn't being applauded (tolerance has also gotten thrown into the mix, which I will address later).

Actually, opposition to their point of view exists because of diversity of opinion, sexual preference, politics, and the like. If diversity were not held in high regard at this university, would it not be true that views in opposition to those in seats of power would be silenced? Think about it: what if President Bacow decided that sexuality should never be discussed openly, for example. I know, I know, there'd be protests, but the point is that there would be no open discussion of sexuality. The fact that there is open discussion of sexuality on campus does not indicate that Bacow thinks that sexuality must always be discussed openly; otherwise, those who oppose open sexuality would not be allowed to respond in the way that they have over the past couple of weeks. There are two very different sides here, both of which have made their opinions public, and this is due to Tufts' acceptance of diversity.

So where does that leave us on the gay marriage thing? Basically, both sides need to understand the other, since I don't see either lightening up any time soon. If I understand correctly, those who oppose same sex marriage find it immoral, with most of the roots stemming from religious doctrine, or believe that it will undermine society somehow, which angers the opposition, which believes that it does not separate church and state or that there are no logical grounds for their argument. They believe that a group of citizens is being denied a basic right, which is forbidden under the Constitution, and this angers the other side, for if their opposition stems from religion, which to many is the most important aspect of life, then there does not need to be any logical reason why same sex marriages should not be allowed; it is the way that God wanted it to be, so how can anybody argue against that?

If both sides understand these premises, then they come to realize that their view runs into a brick wall on the other side. But does that mean that diversity is not being appreciated? No, this argument is not really applicable here, since either side already feels somewhat oppressed by the existence of the other. It is not a matter of diversity, which allows the existence of varying sides. Either opinion cannot yield to either side; both must be singular in their existence, which eliminates diversity from entering into either side's mind.

It's a little confusing, and I'm not sure if I completely understand the philosophical implications of what I just said, but let's put it this way: if someone says, "Isn't it ironic then, that in a community such as Tufts where diversity and tolerance are applauded, my beliefs about homosexuality will be seen as unfair, narrow-minded, and discriminatory?" then diversity is not really in any danger here. Diversity is what makes people think that such beliefs are unfair. I just can't stand seeing people using the diversity issue as a protective cloak any longer; if you have your opinion, voice it, and appreciate the diversity that you will experience when people come knocking at your door.

But I haven't forgotten about tolerance. I'll make it brief: the belief that homosexuals should not be allowed to wed is completely intolerant. That's all that it is: pure intolerance. Whatever your reasons or justifications, the view is founded on the intolerance of homosexual marriage.

Intolerance isn't always a bad thing; I'm quite intolerant of pick-pockets, and so is the government, which is why pick-pockets are arrested. So intolerance, in some form or another, is necessary to a functioning society. The infringement of a particular view on another person's life is what causes conflict. I do not tolerate Nazis, and they do not tolerate me, so we arrive at a crossroads. However, I do not think either side here misunderstands the other (if there's a Nazi out there who disagrees, then please get in touch with me). The idea that Tufts is a place of pure tolerance is pretty na??ve. Tufts does not tolerate people who do not tolerate people. That's why we have a bias response team, which intolerates intolerance. Get it? So saying that opposing a personal view is a defamation of Tufts' tolerance is, indeed, very narrow-minded; it doesn't matter what opinion is at stake.

In closing, it should be obvious that there is going to be much heated debate over not only same sex marriage, but other issues that will surely come, especially in an election year. Both sides need to understand each other, but that doesn't mean they have to tolerate it. The fact that both sides exist is a sign of diversity, which does not require tolerance in order to exist. So don't try to hide behind them if somebody thinks that you're wrong.

Joshua Cohn is a sophomore majoring in Music.