I assume that the group elects its leaders, so I would think that would be all the "faith" enforcement they need. They're also free to meet elsewhere, if Tufts doesn't want them.

apparently the irony of a school with religious origins even considering this type of blatant religious thought control, THAT irony, is lost on certain folks at Tufts.  

this is not political correctness.  this is pure and simple religious persecution.  imagine Tufts adopting an analogous approach to a Black student group, an Ayn Rand club, etc.  sounds like Tufts is in danger of getting stuck on stupid.  as a Tufts alumnus, I can tell you not the first time and not the last.  what a shock:  an institution that can run rampant over individual rights.  Tufts was, after all, the academic home of John Sununu ... go figure

If they want recognition, resources, and funding from the University they need to follow its rules.  If they eant to forego all three they can do as they want.

Religion has no place in univerisity structure - in fact, might be considered the opposite of "education." There are churches and mosques and temples in which people can congregate, worship, fraternize and extoll their beliefs - but Universities should be dedicated to open, clear-eyed learning - certainly not a hallmark of religous views of any kind.

If you don't want to join  a particular religious group, then just ignore them.  There are many things that appear on my computer monitor, which I dislike.  I just press DELETE. 

If the group accepts funding, they accept the rules. If they don't want non-biblical believers to be leaders, then they can sort that out when they elect the leader.  It's a win-win.  Clubs don't discriminate in membership (same rules apply to all members), and the membership they can choose leaders who agree with them.

If its a religious group then its up to them who to admit and who should lead...if they get funding from the school and the school has conditions then they need to adhere to them. If not then don't accept the school funding.

As recently as the 1960s, evangelical christians were very wary of involvement with secular authority. They recognized, rightly in my view, the risks inherent in seeking the support of organizations that did not necessarily share their beliefs and goals. It's unfortunate that so many of them have abandoned that position.

Do the club's rules literally require the leader just to "celebrate 'the basic biblical truths of Christianity' "? Because I celebrate Halloween, but I don't believe in ghosts or vampires.

Before you know it we'll all be living under biblical law (an eye for an eye,  if your right hand offendeth thee cut it off, etc. [there'd be lots more lefthand men if that were the case])!  They must be stopped before we're forced to wear crucifixes, eat fish on Fridays, kiss the bishop's ring, etc. & etc. and blah, blah, blah, and so forth and so on...

Tufts may want to resolve this soon.  Is the university open and supportive of all of us or not ?  I am not a believer but I see nothing at all controversial about expecting an institution of higher learning much less a liberal arts college like Tufts to respect individuals and "permit" them to combine.  this could not be more clearly thought control ... it is about these folks agreeing to a set of beliefs ... how you supress or discriminate against them, it is only on their beliefs, the basic biblical truths of Christianity.  Tufts is no better than Bob Jones University; actually, worse since so rankly hypocritical.

"basic biblical truths of Christianity?? Now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one....biblical truths. A book of fairy-tales, written, interpreted, re-interpreted, enhanced and modified, over and over again, over the course of 2000 years, by ordinary men who thought they heard God's voice whispering in their ears. Like a lot of the republican party candidtes for president.

Folks, the debate is NOT over the merits of Christianity. The debate is over whether a group has any right to describe and enforce the reasons for its existence. For example, suppose the Tufts LGBT group has 30 members, and then 50 people who don't support gay rights decide to join the group (which is perfectly legal since any student is allowed to join any campus group). Then suppose during club officer's elections, those 50 people outvote the 30 original members and so all the club officers are now anti-gay. Could those new anti-gay club officers then decide to change what the club does or even dissolve the club? Of course, anyone would find it ludicrous because those actions are contrary to the club's reason for existence. Theoretically, the Tufts policy would allow any group of students to make any club irrelevant. That would be true tyrrany of the majority and goes counter to basic principles of this nation.

Since this is a voluntary group, whose membership is not obligatory for maintaining one's status as a Tufts student or faculty/staff member at Tufts,  and the activities of the group do not violate the law or contemporary  community standards, I cannot see why the Tufts wishes to strip TCF of its official status.  To summarize what some of the other commenters have written: It's an affinity group, meaning that the membership will subscribe to the purpose of the group.  In this case, TCF is requiring its leadership, not its membership, "celebrate 'the basic biblical truths of Christianity,'” which would seem to be reasonable in a group that calls itself a "Christian fellowship" up front.  What about the Hillel and Newman Houses?  Their activities cater to particular religious affiliations, and it is highly unlikelyt that they would select or elect, say, a Muslim or a Protestant.  Unless all religioujs groups are denied official status (or unless I'm missing something here!), this proposed action is absurd and discriminatory.