Campus split over Fagin's move on code

And many have no opinion Student reaction to Interim President Claire Fagin's decision not to suspend Part II of the Racial Harassment Policy was just as divided yesterday as it has been since she announced she would look at the policy two months ago. While some students applauded Fagin's initiative to appoint a committee to come up with a replacement to the controversial Part II, others said her decision was simply a "cop-out." A noticeable number of students, however, said they do not care about the issue or have not followed the debate which has been a source of campus conflict for the last two months. When taken as a whole, student reaction to Fagin's decision tended to be divided along racial lines. "I think it was obviously the right decision on her part," Wharton sophomore Jamal Powell said last night over dinner at the Class of 1920 Commons. "I think she would have faced too much negative slack had she revoked it." Others, like College sophomore Suzy Levinson, disagreed. "I truly believe that people should be able to say what they choose if it doesn't threaten other people," Levinson said. "As little structure as possible should be put into [a policy like this]." One student who would not give her name said she thought Fagin had not done much of anything by issuing her decision. "She made a decision to supplement the policy we have now, but she's putting it off to June 30," she said. "Hasn't she already taken suggestions and opinions from everyone, though? "Isn't that why she postponed her decision in the first place?" she continued. "She really didn't make a decision now. She postponed it again." Another said, "I can't judge her decision because she really didn't make a decision." But Fagin said this was "just not true." "We haven't made a decision as to a new total policy, but we made a decision that we are going to have one," she said last night. "This decision is not going to be put in the hopper for the next academic year. It is going to be concluded before the provost and I are out of our positions." Still, Engineering freshman Chiram Littleton said Fagin's decision was a "cop-out". "It seems like it's kind of a cop-out in a way," he said. "If you say that you're going to solve something and then you put it off until the summertime, you're avoiding the problem. "I think there should be some kind of standard, but I don't know what it is," Littleton added. Engineering sophomore Diallo Crenshaw said eliminating the policy would have created a dangerous void. While he said students generally live up to a standard of civility, he added it is when that decency fails that such a policy would come into play. "There has to be a document in place that says racial harassment won't be tolerated," Crenshaw said. "I don't agree with the wording now, but I agree with the decision to keep it in place until there's something better." College sophomore Melissa Jacobs said that while racially harassing speech is wrong, she disagrees with the idea of a policy that restricts speech. "As soon as you start limiting somebody else's speech, you take something that belongs to them away," she said. "That's not right. Absolutely not. It goes against the First Amendment." But a student who asked not to be identified said the code is needed for protection. "White people have conservative views on racial harassment, but they don't know what it's like to be racially harassed," she said. College sophomore Amy Krissman said the issue is inherently complicated, with no clear-cut answer. "There are so many tactics and so many sides and so many opinions involved that it just becomes so overwhelming," she said. Fagin said Krissman was absolutely right. "Never in my life, in all of my experience, have I ever dealt with an issue as divisive and as emotional as this," she said. "And I have dealt with a lot of issues."

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