Following Tuft's Lead

Last week, after a multiple month showdown that culminated in a student takeover of Tufts University's Bendetson Hall, Tufts president John DiBiaggio acquiesced to student demands and issued a letter affirming that Tufts' non-discrimination policy protects students from discrimination based upon belief. Problems of discrimination and policy ambiguities are not, however, limited to Somerville. Indeed, the recent events at Tufts call attention to the shortcomings of Harvard's own non-discrimination policy.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences handbook for students contains two distinct non-discrimination policies: a general policy and a policy specifically directed towards undergraduate organizations. The general non-discrimination policy states that "any form of discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, veteran status or disability unrelated to course requirements is contrary to the principles and policies of Harvard University." The non-discrimination policy for student organizations, however, is noticeably narrower, providing only that "all officially recognized undergraduate organizations" must have "a constitution and by-laws whose membership clause shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed [interpreted by the university to mean only religious belief], color, sex, sexual orientation or physical disability." Absent from the latter policy is any protection from discrimination based upon age, national or ethnic origin, veteran status or political beliefs.

While Dean of the College Harry Lewis states that he does not know the exact reason for the difference in wording, he posits that certain categories of protection are omitted from the student organization non-discrimination policy because it "would not make sense to prohibit the membership clause of a student organization from using" them. Indeed, it is particularly "obvious," according to Lewis, why the student organization policy fails to protect individuals from discrimination based on "political belief." "No one would want Harvard to discriminate in admissions or hiring on the basis of whether one were a member of the Republican or Democratic Party," he states, "but I doubt that anyone objects to allowing the College Democrats to say that you have to be a Democrat to join."

Contrary to Lewis' opinion, however, there are good reasons for objecting to a policy that allows student organizations to exclude individuals from membership based upon their political beliefs. Fostering a university-wide atmosphere of intellectual openness, pluralism and tolerance of diversity depends not only on the existence of student organizations representing a variety of different ideologies and viewpoints but also on the willingness of those organizations to allow their ideologies and viewpoints to be openly contested.

On one hand, this entails a willingness to engage in dialogue with other organizations, but, on the other hand, and perhaps more importantly, this entails a willingness to permit dialogue within the walls of an organization itself. Indeed, organizations that are officially recognized, and oftentimes funded, by the University ought to allow students to become active members regardless of whether their beliefs are consistent with the dominant ideology espoused by the group. The College Democrats may not agree with individuals who espouse Republican beliefs just as Harvard Right to Life may not agree with students who are pro-choice. Yet, in the event, however unlikely, that a Republican wants to join the Dems or a pro-choice individual wants to join Harvard Right to Life, University policy should guarantee that individual the right to hold membership, and even seek office.

A policy that does not protect students from discrimination based upon political belief does more than stifle dialogue, though. More potently, it leaves open the possibility that organizations will regulate membership based upon students' "political beliefs" about the very entities which the non-discrimination policy explicitly protects--race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation and physical disability. It enables an organization to effectively undermine University non-discrimination policy, and to do so legally. As far fetched as this may seem, this is precisely what occurred at, and, until last week, was validated by, Tufts University. There, the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) repeatedly argued that it denied student Julie Catalano a leadership position not because she was bisexual, but rather because she held the political belief that bisexuality is moral. Accordingly the TCF speciously claimed that it had not violated university policy which explicitly protects students from discrimination based upon sexual orientation

Dean Lewis refused to comment on whether Harvard's non-discrimination policy would protect a student in a situation similar to Catalano's, noting that such a situation "has not arisen in practice, at least in the past five years" and that the "factual details about [such a] case… [would] influence how the policies apply." This unwillingness to confirm that Harvard's non-discrimination policy protects students from discrimination based upon belief is, at best, disconcerting. As students we ought not settle for a policy that may or may not protect an individual from being forced to renounce the validity of his or her identity in order to gain membership in a student group. We ought not feel comfortable with a policy that may permit organizations to deny women membership because they hold the "political belief" that they deserve equal rights with men, deny blacks membership because hold the "political belief" that they deserve equal rights with whites, or deny homosexuals membership because they hold the "political belief" that their identity is moral. Like Tufts students we are entitled to a policy that is unambiguous and whose protections the university can easily, and categorically, affirm.

Consequently, Harvard students would be wise to follow in the footsteps of their Tufts counterparts and demand an administrative statement clarifying the University non-discrimination policy and affirming that it protects individuals from discrimination based upon belief. The rights of students and the atmosphere of tolerance on which this University prides itself are too important to wait and see if our current policy is in fact strong enough.

Lauren E. Baer '02 is a social studies concentrator in Dunster House. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.