Faith in Rules

Harvard is well known for its commitment to diversity and non-discrimination; in the recent amicus curiae briefs filed by Harvard in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Harvard makes clear that it is a firm supporter of diversity, and in the College’s student handbook it is made clear that “any form of discrimination...is contrary to the principles and policies of Harvard University.” I was thus very surprised when the joint student-faculty Committee on College Life (CCL) voted 8-4 to abandon these principles and allow discrimination on our campus by giving the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship (HRCF) the right to remain an accredited student group.

Last December, I led the campaign against giving HRCF an Undergraduate Council grant on the grounds that HRCF requires that its officers “subscribe without reserve” to the organization’s “Principles of Faith;” namely, “the Deity and Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ” and other tenets of Christianity. This policy violates both the College’s and the council’s non-discrimination policies and would thus make HRCF ineligible for council funding and accreditation by the College—and the permission to use space on campus that goes along with it. The matter was forwarded to the office of the Dean of the College for review. At that time, Associate Dean of the College David P. Illingworth ’71 told the Crimson that he was working with HRCF to “develop constitutional changes which would bring them into compliance” with the College’s non-discrimination policy.

Perhaps Illingworth, a member of the CCL and a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts who has served in parishes in Maine and Boston, was joking when he said that. According to internal CCL emails I’ve obtained, it seems the changes were part of a joint proposal on the part of Illingworth and recently ousted Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 to approve a newly revised HRCF charter that did not remove the faith requirement for HRCF’s officers and that therefore allowed them to continue to discriminate. This happened, might I add, without the CCL meeting a single time this semester.

The CCL seems to feel it is acceptable to make exceptions to the most serious of rules for those parties that ask for them. This is tantamount to saying that no one can steal—except thieves and pickpockets. Non-discrimination policies are not meant to address organizations which do not discriminate and have no reason to do so; they are necessary precisely to rein in organizations like HRCF—stubborn organizations which insist on discriminating in the face of clear prohibitions against such behavior. By strongly prohibiting already non-discriminatory groups from discriminating and yet opening up a loophole for HRCF, the CCL has made a mockery of the very idea of non-discrimination policies.

By the CCL’s way of thinking, if religious groups can prevent non-believers from being officers, it is a small and reasonable step toward allowing ethnic organizations to bar those of other ethnicities from their leadership. And if that’s the case, why should organizations like the Fly or the Seneca be barred from College recognition for discriminating on the basis of sex? Perhaps the CCL thinks HRCF is a special case because its discrimination is a matter of religious faith. Note to final clubs: If I were you, I would have one of your members become ordained as a minister online for free, call my group’s members “officers selected by the current group of officers” (Regular membership? What’s that?) and then challenge the College to question the validity of your faith.

And then there’s the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). By making this change in policy, the CCL is in effect stating that organizations (for example, the United States Armed Forces) should be able to say what qualifications their officers must have, regardless of whether or not we think those qualifications are discriminatory. Who then are we to say that the military would function as well as it does today if it had openly gay members? How can we keep ROTC off campus on the grounds that they discriminate while going out of our way to let HRCF do so? One might be tempted to say that it is a simple case of anti-military bias to allow HRCF to discriminate in the selection of its officers while denying the armed forces the ability to do the same on campus. Then again, one would hate to question University Hall’s renowned unflinching patriotism during wartime.

All of us, including HRCF’s members, should be saddened by CCL’s recent decision. Discrimination against any of us is discrimination against all of us. If this decision is allowed to stand, who will protect those members of HRCF who have views that differ slightly from the current leadership of the group? Allowing discrimination in officer selection is in effect silencing dissent within the group and this can and will only lead to difficulty for future generations of HRCF officers.

I call upon the administration to reverse this irresponsible assault on the freedom of every member of the Harvard community, religious or not. We are all funding HRCF and we are all hurt by its practices. I hope that we will all soon decide to condemn them.

Jason L. Lurie ’05 is a chemistry concentrator in Cabot House. He is a member of the Undergraduate Council.