Council split over new harassment definition

University Council members were split yesterday on the merits of President Sheldon Hackney's latest proposed definition of racial harassment, which will form the core of a new harassment policy. The definition is Hackney's third proposal since he started to revamp the University's racial harassment code last spring. Some Council members praised the proposal as "the best document" presented thus far, while others berated it for containing the same controversial elements of previous plans. Hackney, who defended this proposal more than any other in previous discussions, said after yesterday's meeting that he "is beginning to believe a lot in this policy." The new guideline is similar to his first definition proposed in October in that it restricts harassment to behavior which complies with three criteria. In the latest proposal, the action must be directed at an identifiable person or group, insult or demean the race, ethnicity or national origin of the person or group, and intend to "inflict direct injury" on the person or group. Hackney also listed under the definition other actions which are prohibited by existing University policies such as violence or threat of violence, discrimination in administering University policies and programs, prevention of access to University resources and threat to academic or work status. Hackney changed the concept of harassment as being words or actions that cause "real harm" -- which Council members criticized at last month's meeting for implying "false harm" -- to those causing "direct injury." But some Council members said this term is also misleading because behavior is often offensive even if it is not directed at the victim. The debate about the new definition focused on many of the same issues as previous discussions, such as the inclusion of "intent" and the idea that action must be directed towards the alleged victim. Several Council members also criticized Hackney's inclusion of another new element, a "reasonable, neutral observer" to judge the intent of an action. They said it would be hard to determine who is a neutral judge in a situation of alleged harassment. Yesterday's debate was less one-sided than previous Council discussions, with several faculty members speaking out on behalf of open expression. "I am dismayed that in an academic community like this there is such a disregard for free speech," Finance Professor Morris Mendelson said, referring to Council members' statements that certain types of speech should be prohibited to protect people from harassment. In other business, Hackney presented Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape with the first Meera Ananthakrishnan-Cyril Leung Award for Safety and Security. He commended the organization for its work in "alerting the University community about acquaintance rape" and for being "national leaders" in this area.

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