Last April, many members of the Tufts campus were outraged after the university ruled that its non-discrimination policy allowed the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) to deny Julie Catalano a leadership position based upon her belief that bisexuality is not immoral. Last week, however, those students were vindicated. After a 36-hour takeover of Bendetson Hall, Tufts University President John DiBiaggio acquiesced to the demands of student protesters, issuing a letter confirming that Tufts non-discrimination policy protected students from discrimination based upon belief. We applaud both the persistence of the protesters and the sagacious--though long overdue--administrative statement.

Throughout the several months of confrontation leading up to the takeover, TCF persistently claimed that it had not violated Tufts' non-discrimination policy, which protects students from discrimination based upon sexual orientation. TCF argued that it had denied Catalano a leadership position not because she was a bisexual, but rather because she interpreted Scripture on homosexuality in a manner that was inconsistent with the organization's beliefs. Like the protesters, we find this claim entirely specious. Any organization that forces an individual to renounce the morality of his or her own identity in order to gain membership or hold office is guilty of discrimination of the worst kind.

The vibrancy of a university depends on the depth and breadth of its student organizations and the diversity of views which those organizations represent. Organizations do have a right to be selective in their membership, especially when the group is based on traditional religious beliefs. However, such organizations, so long as they are funded and recognized by the university, must be willing to accept students with differing views active participants, members and officers. The university should be a strong voice for inclusion and tolerance. If the university does not support such a policy, organizations can easily slip into narrow-minded dogmatism and the open dialogue which a university ought to provide becomes untenable.