GRADUATION: Harassment policy debated

In light of recent events on campus, a constitutional argument which has been going on for years at the University has once again resurfaced. In President Sheldon Hackney's words, "two important University values, diversity and open expression, seem to be in conflict." But, according to the recent history of the University's racial harassment policy, these two values have always been in conflict. Two events which have sparked new debate over University policies are the recent theft of nearly 14,000 copies of The Daily Pennsylvanian by a group of black students and the accusation that College freshman Eden Jacobowitz racially harassed several black students when he called them "water buffalo." The current racial harassment policy, as described in Policies and Procedures, states that the University "must be ready to protect the expression of ideas, opinions, information and knowledge that may be deemed objectionable and insulting to some members of the University community." Still, the policy provides a definition which outlines three specific factors to determine if a statement or action is prohibited because it constitutes racial harassment. "Racial harassment" is defined as "any verbal or symbolic behavior" which is directed at a specific person or group; insults or demeans the race, color, national origin or ethnicity of the person or group; and "is intended . . . only to inflict direct injury" on the person or group. The University's policy was last revamped in 1991 after a federal court ruling said the racial harassment policy at the University of Michigan -- which was then almost identical to the University's -- was unconstitutionally vague and violated First Amendment free expression rights. The University's revamped version is similar to the one at the University of Wisconsin, which was also deemed unconstitutional because it did not specify what incidents could be construed as harassment, and it allowed for people to be punished for constitutionally protected acts. University officials, though, have maintained for years that the University is exempt from free-speech guidelines due to its private school status. There are critics of the University's current policy on both sides. One side says the policy is too narrow and unfair to victims because it places too much pressure on proving the three criteria. Especially challenging, this side argues, is proving the issue of intent -- the third factor in determining harassment. But the other side says the policy is too broad and threatens to restrict the First Amendment freedom of speech. Harvey Silverglate, a member and former president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the current policy's vagueness gives too much power to the administration. "Given an inch, the administration at Penn will take a yard," he said. "All you have to do is give them a code that is sufficiently vague -- then they can weave fantasies like they did in the Jacobowitz case." Silverglate added that while other Ivy League schools would probably not hear the case, the University will do so because of its "stage of political correctness development." Other Ivy League schools have policies which seem vague: ·At Brown University, harassment is defined as "the subjection of another person or group to abusive, threatening, or intimidating actions." ·The policy at Dartmouth College simply states: "Students and recognized organizations are prohibited from engaging in harassment . . . [defined as] abusive conduct directed at an individual and repeated." Several other schools specify "trends" and "past behavioral patterns" as criteria. ·Yale University's policy says "no member of the community with a decent respect for others should use, or encourage others to use slurs intended to discredit . . . " ·Several schools' policies discuss the issue of disrupting the "orderly process" or day-to-day activities of the university as a factor in determining whether a violation occurred. All eight Ivy League schools say they place considerable importance on the protection of free speech and expression. Silverglate said his main criticism of the University's administration is that it is made up of "people who claim they belive in free speech and inquiry but who, in the clutch, don't have the guts to really protect free speech." He pointed to the administration's response to the DP theft and the Jacobowitz case as examples.