The Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate at a meeting last month rejected a resolution (7-14-2) that would have encouraged the university and campus groups to "interpret the University's non-discrimination policy in a way that does not bar religious groups from choosing leaders who reflect their views."
The resolution was submitted by Senior Senators Tim Lesinski and Ben Richards.
"I think it's very important that as student leaders we take a stand on this issue," Richards said at the meeting. "Religious organizations are very prominent on this campus."
The resolution included clauses affirming the right of all Tufts students to practice their religion as they wish, even if their beliefs do not align with the majority opinion on campus and that all groups should adhere to the university's non-discrimination policy.
"The TCU affirms the principle that all groups should follow the University's non-discrimination policy in opening their public group meetings to all members of the TCU, and that no group should discriminate in membership on the basis of background, religious belief, moral values, political views, or other opinions," the resolution stated.
The resolution was based on the idea that in order for a religious group to function efficiently and keep its identity, it must have leaders that share the core values of the group, according to Lesinski.
"The resolution said that the non-discrimination policy should not be interpreted in a way that prevents groups from selecting leaders who share their views," he said. "We tried to protect the right of religious groups to do that while still affirming the non-discrimination policy and the importance of keeping all group meetings open to everyone."
Members of the Senate believed that the resolution was proposed in response to recent controversy surrounding the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF). In November, four students filed a complaint with the TCU Judiciary alleging that TCF's policy for selecting leaders requires these students to uphold specified religious tenets and that InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA (IVCF) wields undue influence over the group. IVCF is the national organization of which TCF is an affiliated chapter.
The students later rescinded the complaint pending the results of a still-ongoing investigation by the University Chaplaincy.
"I think the proposed resolution was obviously in light of the recent events that have been taking place with TCF," freshman Senator Robert Joseph, who voted against the resolution, said. "I don't think the intentions were necessarily bad, but I don't think they were trying to accomplish something that I believe is in the interest of the students. I think it was trying to safeguard TCF from possible de-recognition."
Latino Center Community Rep Zoe Munoz, who voted against the resolution, also believes that the resolution was written as a reaction to the complaint against TCF.
"I think that [the resolution was] a reaction to the TCF incident and the dialogue that has been going on around that and the controversy having to do with InterVarsity's policies when it comes to selecting leadership - that there is the possibility that if a student that is part of the LGBTQ community wished to have a leadership [position] within Tufts Christian Fellowship that InterVarsity would be able to say no because of their sexual orientation," she said.
"I think that the intent of the resolution was to give a group a loophole that they could use to get around Tufts' non-discrimination policy and have their own leadership policy and rules and regulations that wouldn't be subject to that Tufts-wide policy," Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Community Rep Grainne Griffiths, a sophomore who voted against the resolution, said.
Lesinski said that while the resolution was motivated in part by the incident with TCF, the resolution as a whole was not meant solely as a response to the TCF case.
"I wanted it to be broader than just TCF, even though that was the specific case," he said. "I wanted it to be protecting all religious groups and a broader statement in favor of freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression at Tufts."
"If there hadn't been a situation where I saw this trying to happen, this resolution probably wouldn't have come about, but ultimately even though it was motivated by the specific circumstance, it was more of an attempt to have broader protection of religious groups," he added.
A senator who voted in favor of the resolution but wished to remain anonymous thought that the resolution was phrased generally in wishing to not bar religious groups from choosing leaders who reflect their views.
"I don't think it would've been written if [the TCF] incident didn't happen, but in the end it's a pretty general resolution, which is why I voted for it," the senator said. "I think that was their way [of] bringing this incident back to light, and it was discussed in a broader sense. I felt like I couldn't vote against it because of the way it was phrased."
Two motions to modify or remove the last two clauses of the resolution also did not pass.
"The reason why those proposals [for modification] failed was because even if we were to take out those lines and just leave the rest of the resolution as it was, it was really an empty resolution," Joseph said.
Lesinski affirms that the resolution was not meant to support or endorse discrimination.
"It's debatable whether or not the TCF policy is discrimination - there are good arguments that it is, and good arguments that it isn't," he said. "However, the main issue in the debate over TCF is whether or not it is right to kick a group off campus and effectively silence them because they have different views from the majority of campus. I hope they can sort out the issue of the Basis of Faith internally, but using the threat of de-recognition to make them change it is unhelpful and has implications that threaten many other groups on campus."
Lesinski said that there are some groups that exist at Tufts, such as all-female or all-male a cappella groups, which he says are technically violating the non-discrimination policy but have not come under fire.
Munoz said she believes the resolution conflicted with Tufts' mission statement and the anti-discrimination policy.
"I thought it was interesting that there was language in the resolution that was just in direct contradiction to our written anti-discrimination policy that the university has," Munoz, a sophomore, said. "If you have read it, it says in there that regardless of your sexual orientation, regardless of your religious affiliation, gender, physical disability, race, ethnicity - you should be able to hold any leadership position, participate in any club, take any class, etcetera."
The anonymous senator believes that once the Judiciary recognizes a group and decides that its constitution is valid, it must let the group do what it wishes.
"It's a group, they stood by what they believe in, and I feel like we have to stand for our groups," the senator said. "There are definitely different groups on campus, you may not believe in everything they say, but in the end they are their group, they are TCU-recognized, so we have to recognize their constitution the way it stands."
-Menghan Liu contributed reporting to this article.
