2008 Woodie Awards
Anti-discrimination resolution debated
Senators disagree over proposal to add sexual orientation to University's equal opportunity clause
Claire Reising
Issue date: 3/20/08 Section: News
Student Senate resumed discussion on a resolution that proposes to add sexual orientation to Notre Dame's non-discrimination clause.
The Senate, however, could not vote on the resolution at yesterday's meeting because not enough members were present for quorum.
The proposed resolution supports this change in the non-discrimination clause for several reasons. It states that the Catechism of the Catholic Church opposes discrimination of homosexual persons. The resolution further claims that other American Catholic Colleges, such as Georgetown and Kings College have added sexual orientation to their non-discrimination clauses.
Although the senators did not vote yesterday, several controversies arose in the discussion, such as possible ramifications of a non-discrimination clause and the necessity of Student Senate's involvement in the issue.
Fisher senator Stephen Bant and Keenan senator Gus Gari debated over the legitimacy of the resolution.
Bant disagreed with the resolution, arguing that it may be seen as an endorsement of homosexual activity and cause the Church and donors to criticize the University.
"The University enacting this kind of policy has a lot of unforeseen … negative repercussions that we can't even begin to imagine," he said. "It's going to upset people, whether we like it or not."
Gari argued back, saying that senators should not let donors' opinions control their actions.
"As far as bishops [or alumni donors] getting mad at us, I don't think that should be taken into consideration," he said. "I think that as student leaders, we should be exercising our own independent thought and judgment."
Additionally, Bant feared that a nondiscrimination clause would open the University to liability, increasing the possibility of a lawsuit against Notre Dame for discriminating someone based on sexual orientation.
"I don't think that the University is actually is going to be sued for actively discriminating against people, but I think people can use loopholes and use things given to them to make cases out of things that were not the issue," he said. "It's unfortunate, it's the way the American legal system works, but it's true, and it can happen."
The Senate, however, could not vote on the resolution at yesterday's meeting because not enough members were present for quorum.
The proposed resolution supports this change in the non-discrimination clause for several reasons. It states that the Catechism of the Catholic Church opposes discrimination of homosexual persons. The resolution further claims that other American Catholic Colleges, such as Georgetown and Kings College have added sexual orientation to their non-discrimination clauses.
Although the senators did not vote yesterday, several controversies arose in the discussion, such as possible ramifications of a non-discrimination clause and the necessity of Student Senate's involvement in the issue.
Fisher senator Stephen Bant and Keenan senator Gus Gari debated over the legitimacy of the resolution.
Bant disagreed with the resolution, arguing that it may be seen as an endorsement of homosexual activity and cause the Church and donors to criticize the University.
"The University enacting this kind of policy has a lot of unforeseen … negative repercussions that we can't even begin to imagine," he said. "It's going to upset people, whether we like it or not."
Gari argued back, saying that senators should not let donors' opinions control their actions.
"As far as bishops [or alumni donors] getting mad at us, I don't think that should be taken into consideration," he said. "I think that as student leaders, we should be exercising our own independent thought and judgment."
Additionally, Bant feared that a nondiscrimination clause would open the University to liability, increasing the possibility of a lawsuit against Notre Dame for discriminating someone based on sexual orientation.
"I don't think that the University is actually is going to be sued for actively discriminating against people, but I think people can use loopholes and use things given to them to make cases out of things that were not the issue," he said. "It's unfortunate, it's the way the American legal system works, but it's true, and it can happen."