Boston University: Conservative to a fault

Back in my early days at Boston University, as a freshman news reporter for the Free Press, I covered the homecoming parade. There wasn’t much to say about the parade; the COM float was feathery, to be sure, and the Warren Towers display was very detailed. I decided to chat with the woman next to me and get her take on the show. The woman ended up being the mother of a girl riding on a huge rainbow float. The float belonged to BU Spectrum, and the girl was one of the group’s officers.

Spectrum’s involvement in last year’s homecoming parade was one of the only meaningful parts of an otherwise insipid event. As I investigated Spectrum, BU’s gay, bisexual and transgender student group, I learned of the special significance homecoming held for its members. The parade wasn’t just an opportunity to decorate a flatbed truck. It was a statement; it took courage.

Today, Spectrum is continuing its fight to extend basic rights to homosexual students by asking the administration to include sexual orientation in the school’s anti-discrimination policy. While BU currently forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or disability, it does not explicitly forbid such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The school claims that because such discrimination is illegal under state and local law, it is unnecessary to include it in the school’s policy.

Spectrum stated that the school has alleged that homosexuality is a mere precursor to bestiality and pedophilia, and for that reason should be kept out of the anti-discrimination clause.

While the argument can be made that homosexuality is a chosen behavior — as opposed to race, which is not a choice — the school would be nonetheless ridiculous in resisting the addition of sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination policy. Some would say that being homosexual is not a choice at all. But this matter is irrelevant.

Homosexual students are hardly a threat to others. Quite the contrary; homosexual students are often victims of an obscene amount of harassment. We need the administration to take a stand and say that the school does not tolerate harassment or discrimination on the basis of something as personal as sexual orientation.

The University’s resistance to the addition of a sexual orientation clause is hardly surprising. While more progressive schools, such as Harvard University, have explicitly forbidden such discrimination, BU has shown a pattern of being conservative to the point of being self-defeating. Our housing policy mirrors the anti-discrimination fight very closely.

As in the issue of sexual orientation, BU’s housing policy stands as an anomaly among other urban colleges. While there is an obvious need for tight security in the middle of Boston, BU’s policy extends far beyond safety. Chancellor Silber has said the school’s policy forcing all guests to leave housing by 1:00 a.m. is to prevent sexual relations within the dorm. I find it hard to believe that Chancellor Silber thinks a curfew really curtails college sex.

But sex isn’t the issue; BU’s conservatism is. BU has the power to alleviate the local housing crisis by drawing scores of students back onto campus with a relaxed guest policy. BU can reduce alcohol-related arrests by bringing parties back into the dormitories, where they could be more closely supervised and restrained. But BU won’t relax its policy. Even though it would be better for the school, BU feels it is appropriate to pass moral judgment on its students. The administration feels it has a place in our sex lives.

Adding sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination clause would only improve the BU community. It would reduce the number of attacks on gays by more strictly punishing these offenses. It would bring BU up to par with other universities that acknowledge the dignity of homosexuals.

The need for the expansion of the anti-discrimination statement is similar to the need for federal hate crime legislation — while laws do exist to punish the practice, we need still greater edicts because such crimes terrorize a larger community. BU cannot claim that other laws are sufficient. Nothing is as effective as a decisive statement by the administration that we do not tolerate bigotry.

Hopefully, BU will give up its role as moralizer. The school’s conservatism is not only offensive and insulting, but it is also detrimental to the overall safety and wellbeing of the school.