The Undergraduate Council’s grant of funds to the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship (HRCF) this week came after an about-face by College officials who this winter had questioned the group’s compliance with the College’s non-discrimination policy.

A few months ago, the debate centered on clauses in HRCF’s constitution which require the group’s officers “subscribe without reserve” to several tenets, including belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the existence of the Holy Spirit.

This week, officials say that the constitution is in accordance with College policy.

“Since we assume that all religious organizations, indeed organizations in general, will elect officers who believe in the overall purpose of the organization, we saw no need to make a change,” Associate Dean of the College David P. Illingworth ’71 wrote in an e-mail yesterday.

In a December e-mail, Illingworth expressed different sentiments on the group’s constitution.

“The sense of the [Committee on College Life] on this matter was quite clear: student groups should not discriminate for membership or in the choice of officers,” Illingworth wrote. “I have let the HRCF know of this opinion. I have offered to work with them to develop constitutional changes which would bring them into compliance.”

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68, who chairs the Committee on College Life (CCL)—a student-faculty committee charged with regulating student groups—also opposed HRCF’s leadership requirements in an e-mail in December.

“The simple principle that [all] members of student organizations should be eligible to be officers seems hard to oppose,” he wrote.

The decision to reinstate the group came after significant disagreement among members of CCL, who ultimately voted on the matter.

CCL decided in an e-mail vote before spring break to reinstate HRCF as an officially recognized College group without requiring the organization to change its provisions for members of the group’s executive committee.

But members of the committee questioned the way in which the vote was conducted.

CCL member Jennifer S. Axsom ’04 says she thinks the process should not have been conducted by e-mail, after discussion of the matter had been suspended for over three months.

“I did not agree with the way it took place. It was abnormal,” she said of the e-mail vote. “I don’t understand why another meeting couldn’t be called.”

She added that the months-long hiatus of debate followed by an abrupt e-mail vote also seemed to circumvent further discussion of the issue among CCL members.

Illingworth informed the CCL in March of the results of their e-mail vote, in which eight members voted to allow the constitutional provision to stand, while four voted against it.