Let me see if i have this right.  They want recognition, funding, and resources from Tufts but see no reason to adhere to longstanding rules about campus groups?    Um....that is just not right.   Tea Party types?

Mr. Backman's letter is an interesting demonstration of wanting to be able to make all things equal. An anti-Semitic group is not the same as a Christian Fellowship group. Anti-semitism is a discredited point of view and is not to be tolerated. Same goes for skinhead groups, terrorist groups, Nazi groups, etc. Christians are not even close to be in that category and therefore to compare the two is not only illogical but despicable. I may have misread the article in yesterday's Globe but my understanding is that anyone is eligible to join the group but the folks who want to be the group's leaders should practice the guidelines of the group. My guess is that no one who is not an evangelical-type Christian would want to join. Kind of like a person who doesn't want to play football would join the football group or a person who doesn't want to be a debater would want to join the debate club. Unfortunately, college campuses have long since given up their role of being a place open to all sorts of different points of view and become hotbeds of political correctness. Their "tolerance" smacks of intolerance and also the superior attitude that they should have the power to deign to decide what to tolerate.

Any social group has the right to establish certain rules to determine membership. Religious groups all have the right to ask for a declaration of faith or an oath of loyalty. If this group is banned for requiring a vow of faith, then they must also ban any and all other groups which have similar requirements. That might be seen as grounds for banning lodges, fraternities, other religious groups, and even pagans and heathens. The first amendment should be seen as guaranteeing the right to establish a set of rules for such private practice, as long as they are not in violation of other public laws.