Deploring Discrimination, BC Reserves Right to Do It

Last month, students at Boston College voted 84% in support of a referendum to include "sexual orientation" in the college's non-discrimination policy. The president of the college, Father WIlliam Leahy, is still reluctant to make the change, and I've learned that BC students are launching a letter writing campaign and college-wide strike this week. They're asking for support in the form of letters to Father Leahy at william.leahy.1@bc.edu or leahy@bc.edu. If your theology supports it, please consider contacting Father Leahy. For more information, check out www.bcequality.org."

In a letter to the BC campus paper, Fr. Leahy wrote: "I realize that some in our community believe that BC should include "sexual orientation" in its nondiscrimination clause. However, adding the words "sexual orientation" could result in outside authorities interpreting the nondiscrimination clause in ways that would require BC to approve and fund initiatives or activities that conflict with its institutional commitments. As president of BC, I have the obligation to safeguard the University from such intrusion." (Here's the link if you want to read the rest; you'll have to provide your email address.)

I should note that Father Leahy's letter otherwise expressed as much Christian compassion and support for BGTL members of the BC community as one would wish. But I've been racking my brain trying to think of what these "outside authorities" might be, and what they might want BC to do.

As far as I can imagine, if BC changes the policy and says that it does not discriminate based sexual orientation, the "outside authorities" Fr. Leahy mentions will want BC to act as if this is true. In other words, BC will be expected to hire people who might be openly gay, to punish people who discriminate against students who are openly gay, and to fund student groups who might disseminate information on what it means to be BGLTQ. At Harvard, the month of "Gaypril" means our BGLTSA is putting on events ranging from study breaks to a BDSM workshop. It's understandable that Father Leahy might worry about opening the door to such dialogue on his campus. Let alone promoting same-sex relationships, which a Catholic institution can't do, dialogue about sexuality tends to include a lot of discussion and implicit promotion of sexual activity, which is even more hinky from Father Leahy's perspective.

But BC, as the Father points out in his letter, is an academic institution - it's not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the delight, I'm sure, of its students. If a BC religion class can teach Hinduism without constant disclaimers, if a BC economics student can write her thesis on capitalism - or communism - and decide she's for it, if a BC professor can support abortion in a letter to the editor and not get fired (which I hope she can do there), then BC is already a space for dialogue and the free flow of ideas. That's education, not indoctrination. That's a university.

There is a difference between allowing BGLTQ groups on campus and teaching communism at a Catholic school. To a certain extent, student groups encourage and promote behaviors in a way that classes don't. It's reasonable to say that a gay student who goes to a gay group is more likely to date another gay student (you can replace gay with Republican, Catholic, Sikh, whatever) than a student who didn't have that option. It takes many to practice Communism, but only two to (gasp!) do that thing that Catholic universities can't promote, even if it means condoms aren't available in the health center. Sex has different consequences than heterodox speech, it's true: potentially more dire ones.

But in Catholicism, gay sex outside of marriage is no better or worse (okay, it's equally as bad) as straight sex outside of marriage. (Granted, gays can't marry in Catholicism, but last time I checked homosexual companionship was still okay, which seems to presume that gay people will be in the same room at some point.) BC promotes the same amoral behavior by allowing Republican, Sikh and Catholic groups to exist that they hazard by allowing gay groups on campus. Sure, there are ways to keep straight and gay people from having sex outside of marriage - but the only way to be sure is to keep them from meeting each other. Separation, silence, lack of dialogue: expressly contrary to the principles of a university.

BDSM at BC?

Father Leahy needs to take that risk.