Justice policy sees changes over the years

If a current Penn student were to lean out of his or her high rise window and yell insulting remarks at noisy passers-by, things would proceed a little differently than they did in 1993.

The student might be criticized but wouldn't be prosecuted by the University. He or she might be asked to participate in a mediation process but would not be required to undergo lengthy disciplinary action.

But then again, a lot has changed on Penn's campus since 1993. In that year, during a period of clear racial tension, College freshman Eden Jacobowitz was charged with harassment after he called a group of black sorority women "water buffalo," sparking controversy over the issue of free speech.

The charges were filed by five of the women, who claimed that the term was racially charged. They were based on the University's newly implemented speech code.

Once the charges were filed, an investigation and hearing by the Judicial Inquiry Office ensued. And following the theft of an entire press run of The Daily Pennsylvanian by self-described "members of the black community" in protest of a columnist some accused of racism, the media descended on the case, lambasting then University President Sheldon Hackney -- whom they said failed to adequately condemn the incident -- for what they saw as political correctness run amuck.

After extensive media hounding, the women eventually dropped the charges. And since then, the University has revised its disciplinary policies. Now, instead of an actual speech code, the Office of Student Conduct -- the University's main disciplinary body has gone from being the JIO to the Student Dispute Resolution Center to the OSC -- emphasizes mediation between groups.

"Mediation is a more informal, direct and constructive form of resolution," said OSC Director Michele Goldfarb.

Changes to the Code of Student Conduct were based on recommendations by the faculty and student Judicial Revision Oversight Committee and reviewed by the University Council and the four undergraduate schools. Student groups like the First Amendment task force worked to advance student interests and were vocal critics of the code.

And according to History Professor Alan Kors, who served as Jacobowitz's adviser throughout the debacle, the changes are "better late than never."

Instances of perceived hate speech have occurred since the Water Buffalo affair, but the University has handled them in different ways, according to University President Judith Rodin.

For instance, last year, linguistics graduate student and teaching assistant Stephanie Winters posted a message on a University newsgroup entitled "Time for Palestinians to Die." The posting sparked fear among Arab students, particularly a student who was in Winters' section. The Arab student was permitted to switch sections, but no action was taken against Winters.

"We give safe haven to those experiencing harassment without suppressing speech," Rodin said.

Penn administrators have agreed that the Water Buffalo affair prompted changes to the student judicial system, but there is dissent regarding the extent to which Jacobowitz's case was a direct cause of those changes.

"We did a remarkable job in thinking about what went wrong and what issues to discuss," after the Water Buffalo incident, Rodin said.

According Goldfarb, "most changes arose either as a direct or indirect result of the Water Buffalo incident, during the rethinking in the aftermath of it."

Kors, who has been the University's most outspoken critic of constraints on free speech, said that he thinks the University changed its policy because "it was burned by the Water Buffalo case."

Hackney said that the speech code was the cause for the public scrutiny.

"The central dilemma of this case [is] if you want to maximize free speech, barring hate speech doesn't work," Hackney said.

"Trying to enforce civility through disciplinary rules... just doesn't work," he added.

"A speech code says to women, blacks and gays, 'You are too weak to live with freedom,'" Kors said.

Rodin also criticized the idea of a speech code, noting, "The role of an academy is not to stifle thought or ideas, rather to expose them to the light of day.... A university should be a safe haven for people to express their views."

"The cost to the fabric of the community from that kind of suppression is too high," she added.

Hackney agreed that the University's current mediation policy of the OSC is a better solution and said that "an old fashioned answer of informal inventions" is important to allowing speech while maintaining students' security.

Goldfarb said that since the Water Buffalo incident, advisers are better trained and are there to "support and advise both the aggrieved and accused through the discussion process."

She added that information about the process was made more readily available and that student involvement is important.

"There is a lot more student involvement than was previously the case," Goldfarb said. "The Honor Council and Conduct Council... voice student perspectives."

Still, the current system continues to have its critics, who maintain that disciplinary officers will not be impartial because they work for the University.

"The notion of an independent judiciary is absurd," Kors said. "Everyone acts in the interest of the corporation -- that's their employer."

Still, Kors said, "I think Penn students have benefited from the Water Buffalo case," because officials were forced to review the judicial system.

Robin Read, who was the associate judicial inquiry officer for the Jacobowitz case and has since moved to the Department of Academic Support Programs, would not comment on the state of the judicial system in 1993 or the changes that have since been made.

About This Series Ten years ago, the media descended upon Penn. Prompted by the University's handling of the theft of a Daily Pennsylvanian press run and a freshman's shout of "water buffalo," the national press accused the administration of political correctness run amuck. Now that the controversy has died down, the DP decided to take a look back at the incident, its key players and the issues it raised - such as free speech, campus judicial processes and the role of the media.

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