Compassion is a Personal Choice

Jonathan TomczakTHE SANTA CLARANovember 14, 2013Discrimination is sometimes a tricky issue.Azusa Pacific University, a private Christian college in Southern California, asked H. Adam Ackley to leave the university in the middle of his five-year contract after he revealed that he was transgender.Ackley had been teaching at Azusa for 15 years. He had been, at times, the chair of its theology and philosophy department. There’s no disagreement that the only reason Ackley had to leave was because of his gender orientation.To be fair, the departure has been cordial. Ackley and the university released a joint statement at the beginning of October that read in part, “(Ackley) and university leadership have engaged in thoughtful conversations regarding (Ackley’s) continued employment at APU and recognized that they have different views on the theology of human sexuality.”Isn’t this the definition of discrimination?In a year when same-sex marriage has been extended to over a dozen states, and California passed a first-of-its-kind protection bill for transgender students, it seems backward that an otherwise highly-regarded professor can be asked to leave simply because APU disagrees about “the theology of human sexuality.”Legally, there is nothing to be done. California prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity. However, like most similar laws, there are exceptions carved out for religious institutions, including universities such as APU.On the bright side, at least California has such a law. Thirty-three states have no such protections for transgender workers.The freedom to practice one’s religion is, of course, an inalienable right. As always, the problem comes when one inalienable right bashes up against another. In this case, it is the right — not codified in the U.S. Constitution but inalienable nonetheless — to be comfortable in one’s own skin. How can both exist when, for Ackley and other transgender people, they appear to contradict?Legalities aside, Ackley should not have been asked to leave his position at APU. I realize that APU is a religious university that exists to pass on a certain theology and morality to its students. But surely they must realize that contradictions to their theology exist. They shouldn’t pretend otherwise.Assume for a moment that Ackley was still employed by the university. So long as he taught the curriculum as the university had instructed, what harm would that be? The university would teach students the theology they saw fit, and Ackley would still have a job.How can the mere presence of someone oppose religious teaching? Just because a person has not followed scripture to the letter does not mean they are incompetent. On the contrary, it would be constructive to have a staff member who offered an opposing view to compare and contrast with existing ones.The best ideas have never come from an echo chamber.As students of another private, religious university in California, it is important for us question why this happened and if it should have.Surely there must be a way for religious institutions to exercise their beliefs without excluding people who don’t entirely agree or conform.The “Three C’s” of Santa Clara, are competence, conscience and compassion. Is our compassion limited to those we agree with, or are our hearts big enough to find room for all people?People are most persuaded by their equals. Change — the type of fundamental change that affects not just what people do, but how they think — comes most easily when it is passed from neighbor to neighbor.In other words, if APU is to change, it has to be persuaded from people like the students of Santa Clara.Religious liberty is important, but it doesn’t have to be based on the exclusion of people. It can be based on a desire to understand and empathize with those different from us. We shouldn’t have to be compassionate. We should want to be. Jonathan Tomczak is a political science and history double major and editor of the Opinion section.