Hackney presents final harassment revision

President Sheldon Hackney this month presented University Council members with his final proposed racial harassment policy, and drew the same criticisms he has heard from Council members all year. Hackney said he will implement the new policy later this summer if no new criticisms come forth. 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. This proposal, which is the president's fourth draft since he began revising the policy last spring, is almost identical to the draft released in early April, which Hackney said he "was beginning to believe a lot in." The definition of harassment, which forms the core of the racial harassment policy, has been the center of controversy throughout campus all year. Some Council members again criticized the new definition for being too narrow, saying it is unfair to make the victim meet all three criteria to prove harassment. They specifically criticized the use of "intent" in the definition, because they said it puts the burden of proof solely on the victim of harassment. On the other hand, some Council members criticized the policy for restricting free speech too much, saying the University would be better off educating people against bigotry than developing a penal code to punish it. For the first time since the campus-wide debate began, A-3 Assembly President James Gray addressed Council, criticizing the president for "revising in haste a policy which has worked well for our community these years." Gray questioned the actual need for a new racial harassment policy and pointed out that the new code does not mention harassment of visitors to the campus. "There needs to be a mechanism to address the harassment of visiting young black males," Gray said. In other business, Council members almost unanimously supported a faculty committee's report recommending the University's Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs be kicked off campus unless they abide by the University's non-discriminatory policies by June 1993. The recently-released report, commissioned by Council last spring, states that the Army and Navy ROTC units violate University policy by discriminating against homosexuals, whom the Defense Department considers "unsuitable" for military service. The report also recommends that the University lobby the Defense Department to change its policy. Council will vote next fall on whether to approve the report. President Hackney will make the final decision about ROTC's fate on campus. Most Council members saw the issue in black-and-white, supporting ROTC's removal and saying the issue does not need further discussion. They said the ROTC units should be treated like any other University department, which they said would immediately have been removed for such obvious discrimination. "This issue is . . . about upholding the principles for which this University stands," United Minorities Council Chairperson You-Lee Kim said. "I will not sit here and let this University develop policies and then just discard them." Three ROTC students defended the units, saying they agree the Defense Department's policy must be changed, but that moving ROTC away from the University will not accomplish that goal because other "more conservative" campuses will still house the programs and sustain the policy. The speakers said the harms of kicking ROTC off campus would far outweigh the benefits, because it would take more future officers and decision-makers away from the University debate, which could expose them to fresh ideas about the military. Tempers flared after Provost Michael Aiken warned President Hackney not to act hastily in kicking ROTC off campus because of the "many complex issues" surrounding the action. Council faculty and students criticized Aiken, saying they were "shocked" that the provost "does not fully support" the committee's findings.

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