Policies not enough

To the Editor:

Both columnists writing about sexual harassment last week ("Faceoff: Penn's sexual harassment policy," DP, 2/20/06) were wrong: The policies are utterly inadequate.

Not only do most students fail to recognize harassment, fear retribution too much to complain, fail to read or understand the policies and are inhibited by the professor's obvious advantage in knowing Penn as an institution, the complete deference they give to the free speech of the professor does not allow for the student to be appropriately represented.

Free speech is certainly an important value, but how "free" is speech if the professor's actions preclude the student's rights? We have a president who has committed her academic career to the study of deliberative democracy, the recognition that mere free speech is not enough to secure real democracy; we must foster that speech among all segments of the population.

The non-discrimination policy and the sexual-harassment policy do not interfere with freedom of thought, discourse and speech; they encourage it among students.

If I fear my professor and refuse to go to his office hours because I fear harassment and thus have lower grades and less understanding of the material, my "thought, discourse and speech" rights have been degraded.

Penn professors are well-protected by institutional advantage -- especially those with tenure -- but what protects students?

Honestly, if innocently eating a hot dog were a cause for concern, as Stephen Morse asserted, we would have far more reported incidents. So far, no professor has been fired arbitrarily and too many have been retained despite serious allegations.

Perhaps if Morse actually reviewed the history of the policies he may have better understood their necessity.

Sonia Pascal

College sophomore

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