The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

University Council members sparred in a heated debate yesterday over who -- if anyone -- should be allowed to take pictures of individuals who violate University open expression guidelines and then refuse to identify themselves. After a lengthy debate at yesterday's Council meeting, two proposals designed to help the University identify and punish violators were put off for further discussion. One plan, supported mainly by faculty, would change current policy to allow University Police officers to take the pictures, and then give the cameras to someone from the Office of the Vice Provost for University Life for identification purposes. Currently, police officers are specifically prohibited from taking the pictures, which are reportedly destroyed once the student in question is identified. The other plan, supported by students, would eliminate the photographs and instead subject individuals who refuse to identify themselves "to normal police procedure, including arrest and fingerprinting." Under the current system, people who violate the University's open expression guidelines -- during campus rallies or protests, for example -- may be reprimanded by an open expression monitor and asked to identify themselves so that charges can be pressed. If the violators do not give their name, their picture is taken and they are later identified. Currently, photographs may be taken by anyone except police officers. Backers of the first proposal yesterday, led by Statistics Professor and Faculty Senate Chairperson David Hildebrand, say it would make life easier for open expression monitors. They say that many monitors do not like taking the pictures because they fear the possibility of physical violence and because many monitors have University jobs which require them to be student advocates. But the other plan's supporters contend that pictures are not enough to make a definite identification, and argue that University officials should not be photographing students anyway. Undergraduate Assembly member David Rose, the spokesperson for this plan, said at the meeting that letting officers take pictures was a "non-option." And UA member Ethan Youderian, a College junior, echoed Rose, saying the "main issue was that students didn't want to be photographed." But Hildebrand said arresting students for refusing to say who they are is too drastic, especially compared with the option that he supports. And Provost Michael Aiken disputed the notion that pictures cannot be used to identify students at such a large institution as the University. He said the University has successfully used them in the past as means of identifying students. Throughout the debate, arguments and counterarguments were hurled back and forth, occasionally sparking hot tempers. Mathematics Professor Peter Freyd criticized the second plan and said "there's no way" police officers would arrest someone just because they refused to identify themselves. UA member Jorge Espinel, a College sophomore, made an ominous comparison between the plan to let officers take pictures and a photo file which the University is rumored to have kept on some students during the 1960s. "The photographs bring out that fear again," he said. In other business, Council approved revisions to the Council Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid in a 20-9 vote that was split largely on faculty-student lines. The committee, which was changed to reduce overlap with the Provost's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions, will extend its reach to include graduate students once the revisions take effect. Prior to the vote, several student members, including Rose, Bartok and UA Chairperson Jeff Lichtman, questioned the possibility of increasing student representation on the provost's committee. Council also voted by a 16-10 margin to make 85 decibels the new noise level for gatherings on College Green and Locust Walk. Exceptions will be allowed for special events, such as Hey Day and Spring Fling.

Comments powered by Disqus

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