{shortcode-7a9fff27377fe68263c5d91565ffd66771e17413}

A year ago last week, we forcefully condemned Harvard College Faith and Action’s decision to host a controversial speaker who identified as “ex-gay” and urged queer Christians to deny their sexuality in the service of God at one of its Friday night “Doxa” forums. Just a week later, HCFA was found to have pressured one of its student leaders to resign in September 2017 after details of her same-sex relationship had emerged.

In response to that decision, the Office of Student Life, now restructured as the Dean of Students Office, placed HCFA on “administrative probation” — a term whose meaning the administration had repeatedly refused to clarify. When HCFA was placed on probation, the administration said that HCFA would need to sever ties with its parent organization — Christian Union — in order to regain recognized status from the College.

But this requirement — and other typical probationary requirements like the inability of organizations to use University spaces — have dismayingly not been enforced by the University. Despite the administration’s inability or unwillingness to define standards for probation or hold HCFA accountable for them, Associate Dean for Student Engagement Alexander R. Miller nonetheless wrote in an email that the probationary period is “scheduled to conclude next month.”

We hope the Harvard community, especially the transitioning DSO, still remembers — and takes seriously — HCFA’s deeply problematic behavior of last year. The inability of the College to enforce the punishments leveled against HCFA is not just disappointing, but more broadly indicative of Harvard’s failure to hold fast to some of its punitive efforts — including sanctions against the final clubs. We hope that new DSO reinvigorates efforts to bring actual, meaningful sanctions against HCFA, to clarify the terms of and subsequently enforce the organization's probation, and to ensure that it severs contact with Christian Union.

In private comments, former Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion Roland S. Davis expressed concern about punishing HCFA, fearing that Harvard could be seen as attacking Christianity. We are sympathetic to these concerns, particularly in the modern political context, and recognize how crucial it is that Harvard not alienate people of faith. However, we believe that failure to clarify the University’s position and bring HCFA’s status into accordance with stated University procedure represents a lack of consistency on the part of the administration.

Student groups of all kinds deserve and receive support from the University to facilitate their operations. These groups are often united on the basis of shared interest, such as faith in the case of HCFA. But the University cannot privilege one kind of unifying interest — even one as central to the lives of its adherents as religion — over others in administering consequences for policy violations. To that end, the administration must reconsider its approach to dealing with HCFA as the organization moves towards coming off its “administrative probation.” The College must clarify its policies to the community at large and put them into practice equally for all student organizations — including HCFA.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.