A Discriminatory Clause

Last week, the Committee on College Life renewed College recognition for Harvard Radcliffe Christian Fellowship (HRCF), despite the group’s requirement that leadership believe in the holy spirit and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The committee is in error for not demanding that the club remove this discriminatory policy from its constitution. All students should be free to participate in College activities without being discriminated against because of belief, and it is a shock and disappointment that the committee did not properly uphold Harvard’s anti-discrimination policy.

Discrimination must be prevented in all levels of a group’s organization, from rank-in-file to top-tier leadership. While HRCF does not discriminate when recruiting new members—its leaders recently inserted a new clause into the constitution that emphasizes this point—stressing that membership is open is little more than a token gesture. Full participation in a club must include the opportunity to take on roles of responsibility and control. It is absurd to imagine approval for a club that allows open membership but restricts leadership to members of a certain race or gender. Similarly, no group should require dogmatic professions of faith for participation in membership or leadership.

Some may argue that requiring the leaders of a Christian group to believe in “core” Christian beliefs is not discriminatory because the purpose of the group is to celebrate these beliefs. But the purpose of the group is irrelevant; leaders should be interested in—and effective at—fulfilling the group’s mission, but they should not be restricted based on profession of faith. Holding certain beliefs is not necessary to effectively fulfilling a leadership role. For example, the leader of a political party-based club may disagree with the party line on some issues—but leadership only requires promoting the party, not believing every tenet it teaches.

Eliminating these discriminatory clauses from HRCF would not mandate a secularization of religious based organizations. There are many reasons why an individual may want to help lead HRCF—and a student interested in prayer, socializing and community service who does not believe in the resurrection could make a great leader. In a vie for these roles, students should be weighed on their ability to fulfill the group’s mission, and they should not be excluded for because of a reluctance to accept certain tenets.

While the outcome is of the deepest concern, the handling of the committee’s decision—especially on such a crucial and precedent-setting issue—was also problematic. The committee was in error for holding a hasty and irregular vote over e-mail, after months of silence regarding HRCF.

Associate Dean of the College David P. Illingworth ’71 and Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 should have forced HRCF to change its constitution or lose College recognition. The Committee on College Life’s decision is a surprising and irresponsible change in the position of the administration, which should be enforcing the school’s non-discrimination policy more vigorously in the future.

Dissent: Discrimination Not the Issue

The persecutors of HRCF charge the group with discrimination, but fail to produce a victim—except for the group’s legitimacy and right to promote unpopular beliefs.

No one has ever blamed HRCF’s constitution for blocking their leadership ambitions. Instead, the call for constitutional revisions is symbolic, opponents argue, because asking that leaders agree with the organization’s religious principles constitutes discrimination.

It is hard to imagine a secular group like the College Democrats facing similar attacks for rejecting a leadership candidate who is also an executive of the Harvard Republican Club. HRCF is merely forthright about the ideological lines it considers necessary both to protect the goals of its organization and to challenge a campus that would rather see religious doctrine whispered behind closed doors.

HRCF contributes to the larger diversity of ideas on campus and serves several dozen members, more than adequate reason for council funding and the privilege of meeting in the University’s student spaces. Dubious attacks on the group’s credibility, under the guise of preventing discrimination, gives credence to those who consider Harvard openly hostile to religion.

—Blake Jennelle ’04, Travis R. Kavulla ’06,

Jasmine J. Mahmoud ’04 and Andrew P. Winerman ’04