HCIA Faced Clear Discrimination

I would like to commend Jeffrey N. Gell's coverage of the recognition process involving Harvard Christians in Action (HCIA). His two articles high-light an issue which is of concern to all students at Harvard because it addresses a problem of fairness which goes beyond the circumstances of this particular debate. Despite what Dean Archie C. Epps III has stated, the issue at hand is not whether HCIA is autonomous from the Boston Church of Christ. At issue is the right of any group of students to exist as a recognized organization when it meets the minimum requirements stated in University regulations. HCIA is a good test case for Harvard because it challenges the sincerity of our rhetoric when we so loudly and proudly proclaim our tolerance, protection and, yes, even encouragement of minority viewpoints within this university community. The outcome of HCIA's recognition process will indicate how deep this commitment really is among us.

Although the group meets the requirements set forth in the Student Handbook, HCIA has had to wait two years for any action to be taken and is now faced with the additional hassle of having its request sent into an unnecessary subcommittee hearing. The official reason given by Dean Epps for his two-year delay is that he has concerns about the group's autonomy; however, he has given no indication of how HCIA violates the autonomy rule other than citing that some of its members are affiliated with the International Churches of Christ (ICC).

This objection is easily countered by noting that many other student groups at Harvard, especially religious ones, are formed by students with a common interest based on their individual affiliations with outside organizations. Consider, for example, the Catholic Students Association, the Korean Baptist Koinonia and Christian Impact (Campus Crusade for Christ). Does anyone question the autonomous status of these groups because their members have an affiliation with a particular church or fellowship? Of course not. Even with non-religious groups, Harvard seems to have no problem with this ambiguity, considering that it recognizes Amnesty International, the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard and the Republican Club, many of whose members presumably have individual memberships in these larger organizations. If the same reasoning that has been applied to the HCIA were applied to these groups and others like them, none of them would pass the autonomy rule.

Given that there are no grounds for an objection on the basis of autonomy, there remains the question of why Dean Epps has failed to act responsibly in his handling of HCIA's application. The answer becomes obvious when one examines the structure of the special hearing he called to address the matter on December 19, 1994. Ostensibly, this vote and the whole subcommittee procedure have been set up to determine whether or not HCIA meets the requirements of a student group, i.e. the autonomy rule. Yet, if autonomy is the real issue, why has Dean Epps invited to the meeting "a proctor with complaints about the conduct of some members of the church" ("Epps Delays Group Recognition," news story, Dec. 7, 1994)? How can a proctor with an obvious personal dislike of the ICC shed any light on the autonomy of HCIA? It is clear that the intent of this meeting is not to address the autonomy issue, but to cast a negative light on the religious beliefs and practices of student members of the ICC.

Given the make-up of the invitation list, this meeting will likely contain more pithy observations of the kind offered by proctor Terri Gerstein, who suggests that Harvard first-years are so narve that she, fearing that they might get "sucked in" by a church she doesn't like, must protect them from their own capacity to make decisions. First-year students who enjoy making their own choices should feel duly insulted by her remarks. Undergraduate Council member Randall A. Fine '96 correctly identifies the agenda behind the December 19 meeting when he notes, "if it isn't an issue of ideology, [Epps] would have come out two years ago and said no [to HCIA]." Dean Epps has had two years to formulate a case, and all he has offered so far is an insupportable argument about autonomy. Attacking the religion of certain HCIA members is the only avenue he has left to produce a negative vote.

The mishandling of HCIA's recognition process is cause for alarm within the Harvard community. If we grant the right to express and disseminate ideas to some students but deny these same privileges to others, then we might as well stop all this highminded talk about tolerance and diversity. Those who stood on the Widener steps in December to cheer the words of Professor David Mitten as he denounced the attacks on Muslims in Bosnia should, to be consistent, be among the first to speak out on behalf of HCIA. If one stands in solidarity with the Bosnian Muslims across the ocean, then in principle one should not remain silent when basic rights are being denied in one's own backyard.

The delays involved in HCIA's recognition process have been unnecessary and unfair. The calling of a special meeting for the purpose of slandering the religion of students is even worse--it is an embarrassment to the University. As a community we must decide whether the rules which grant freedom of expression apply to all students or only to those whose views the majority finds acceptable. Failure on the part of the administration to observe its own guidelines for student group recognition is a demonstration that, in matters of religious expression. Harvard has a double standard. Failure on the part of the student body to be vocal in its support of HCIA's recognition will open the door to future denial of other groups on the basis of prejudice. If HCIA's application is denied, we will all lose. Michael Lee, GSAS