Hackney enacts new U. harassment policy

President Sheldon Hackney last week adopted a new racial harassment policy after over a year of discussion and criticism. The policy is a slightly modified version of the fourth draft, which Hackney presented to University Council at its May meeting. Assistant to the President Stephen Steinberg, who has been coordinating the policy's revision for Hackney, said last night the changes were not substantive, but consisted mainly of fixing wording and making the code consistent throughout. Hackney could not be reached for comment last night. Under the new code, racial harassment is defined as "any verbal or symbolic behavior" which is directed at an identifiable person or group; insults or demeans the race, ethnicity or national origin of the person or group; and intends to "inflict injury" on the person or group. The definition of harassment, which forms the core of the policy, has been the center of controversy throughout campus all year. On one side, critics said the proposals were too narrow and placed much of the pressure on the victim to prove that the incident of harassment meets all three criteria. But opponents said the old code -- and many of Hackney's revisions -- was too restrictive of free speech. The old racial harassment policy had less rigorous standards for determining harassment than the new code. The old policy prohibited behavior that caused a threat to a person's academic or work status, interfered with a person's academic or work performance or created an intimidating or offensive academic, living or work environment. The revision of the policy followed a trend toward rewording racial harassment codes at colleges and universities nationwide. Many of the revisions came after a 1989 federal court ruling in Michigan that said the racial harassment policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutionally vague and violated First Amendment free expression rights. The old policy at the University was almost identical to the Michigan code. Minority student leaders said yesterday they are disspointed with the new code because even though Hackney has promised otherwise, they believe the victim will have to prove that the harasser intended to discriminate. United Minorities Council Chairperson You-Lee Kim said she is disappointed with the adopted code, but said it was "an improvement from some of the past drafts." "It is like putting the cart in front of the horse," Kim said. "It assumes that everyone is on an equal foot." The new policy will require the administration to work harder in other ways to insure equality for everyone at the University, Kim said. "Given the president's acceptance of the Locust Walk report and given the issuance of the new policy, I think that in President Hackney's eyes it may be a tiny step forward for the the University, but in my eyes it is a huge step back for people of color, women and lesbian, gay and bisexual people," Kim said. Black Student League President Jessica Dixon also said the policy puts the burden of proof on the victim of harassment to show intent to discriminate, and that will make it hard for cases to be prosecuted. "If they don't prove the third thing [intent], what happens to the teacher or TA or student?" Dixon asked. "It is one person's word against another." Dixon said much attention is paid to major incidents of harassment while more minor incidents go unnoticed by much of the University community. Dixon added that deans and administrators need to take an active role in education and should conduct regular interviews of graduating seniors to determine the extent of racial harassment at the University. The existence of a policy is important because policies and consequences for behavior should be spelled out, Dixon said. On the other side, Physics Professor Michael Cohen called the newly adopted code an improvement over the old policy, but said it is "arguable" if the policy is needed. Cohen said he feels most of the types of behavior which are covered are already discussed in federal and local laws and in the University's Code of Conduct. "It is a definite improvement on the previous promulgated harassment policy," Cohen said. "Harassment is defined in more precise terms than in the previous document." "I don't believe it exposes anyone to any sort of danger," Cohen said. Cohen was also critical of the amount of time it took for the administration to "wake up to the issue of free speech and the fact that people on campus should enjoy as much free speech as any other American citizen."

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