TO THE EDITOR:
There are two ways in which Psalm 100 should be required to reverse their decision to remove Will Thomason from the group. The first way is acknowledging an alternative interpretation of the Bible which does not hold homosexuality as a sin, and the second is by revising their constitution to omit the clause forcing adherence to the “ideology of the Bible.”
In the case of the first, acknowledging an alternative interpretation will ensure that the mandate of adherence to the Bible is permissible under the University. I am sure that many biblical scholars can offer such an interpretation, and that they would be quite convincing.
Should such an interpretation fail to be accepted by the members of Psalm 100, Psalm 100 will be forced to claim that their constitution violates the University’s non-discrimination policy. As such, they would then be required to re-write the constitution, and leave the part about adherence to the Bible out. Either way, Psalm 100 would be compelled to reverse their decision.
If there are other reasons Thomason was dismissed from the group, then Psalm 100 may still bar him from participating — but his dismissal under the reasons given indicates a clear conflict between the organization’s constitution and the University’s non-discrimination policy, and must be rectified.
Scott Neidich
Graduate Student Biochemical Nutrition
