Hackney presents new harassment definition

University Council members yesterday said President Sheldon Hackney's latest proposed definition of harassment, which he presented yesterday, is "a step in the right direction." The definition, which will make up the core of Hackney's soon-to-be-released racial harassment policy, is more specific than the current guideline's, which faculty members and students have said is "too vague." Under Hackney's latest draft, harassment consists of any action that causes "real harm," which he defines in six specific ways: incitement to violence, prevention of access to University resources, intentional interference with academic or work performance, discrimination in implementing University policies or conducting University programs, discriminatory threat to academic or work status, or intentional stigmatization or villification. The president said the proposed definition is a working draft which will be changed and discussed again in future University Council meetings. He said he hopes to release a complete racial harassment policy by the end of the semester. The current guidelines define harassment as behavior that causes a threat to a person's academic or work status, interferes with the the person's academic or work performance or creates an intimidating or offensive academic, work or living environment. Hackney released a dramatically narrower alternative policy last October, which students and faculty almost unanimously criticized for putting the burden of proof solely on the victim of harassment. Under the October proposal, victims had to prove a particular action met three criteria to prove harassment. Under the new proposal, an action constitutes harassment if it meets any one of the six criteria. Most Council members, who have been debating the University's racial harassment policy for over a year, said the proposal is a step in the right direction. But many found fault with the specifics of the new definition. Some members criticized the president's use of the term "real harm," which has never before been mentioned in University policies. They said it implies that some victims of harassment "cry wolf" about the harms they have suffered. "If someone determines that [a claim] wasn't a 'real' harm, does that mean it was a 'fake' harm?" Undergraduate Assembly Safety and Security Chairperson Jeffrey Jacobson said. Hackney stated in his proposal that the term was used to capture the balance between protecting open expression and preventing offensive behavior, the arguments which have formed the core of debate throughout the University's discussion of racial harassment. Graduate student representative Wayne Glasker, along with several other Council participants, also criticized the inclusion of "intentionality" in two points of the new definition. He said it is often impossible to prove the intention of an act and pointed out that "there can be instances when unintended harassment or abuse may occur." But others, such as City Planning Professor Anthony Tomazinis, said proving the harmful intentions of an act protects alleged perpetrators from being punished for non-harassing behavior. Hackney said after the meeting he will consider removing "intention" from the definition after hearing the criticisms from Council members. Finance professor Morris Mendelson more generally criticized the proposed definition, saying it would restrict free speech, which he said is the most important tenet of the University. Mendelson said he fears the restrictions will be extended to include politics, preventing a free exchange of ideas. "I don't see how you can reconcile the proscriptions outlined in the policy with free speech," Mendelson said. Members also debated the issue of "stigmatization" and "villification," many concluding that the terms are too vague. Hackney said he would consider including a definition of the terms in his final version of the policy.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.