Fagin's hands could be tied

EEOC plan may make changing 'speech code' harder A nationwide Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proposal on workplace harassment would limit Interim President Claire Fagin's power to suspend Part II of the University's racial harassment policy. According to this proposal, harassment is defined as "verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward and individual because of his/her race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability." While the proposed guidelines are open to national discussion until November 30, if they are eventually implemented by the EEOC, the University – as an equal opportunity employer – would have to abide by the policy. And if employees are protected by a verbal anti-harassment policy, it follows that students should be offered the same protection, University Council members were told at their meeting yesterday. "It would be very unusual to have [a verbal anti-harassment code] for employees and not for students," Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg said after the meeting, where the issue of whether to suspend Part II was discussed. Hamburg said although the EEOC's proposed guidelines would not legally bind students, they would be a decisive argument against abolishing Part II, the University's so-called "speech code." During yesterday's Council meeting, Council members were divided on how to proceed and whether to suspend Part II. "We need accepted peer values," Faculty Senate Chairperson Gerald Porter said. "We need individuals to make sacrifices for the comfort of others. Laws won't work without that commitment." Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Seth Hamalian said he thinks suspending Part II, without arranging for some kind of alternative policy, would be a mistake. "That would leave people helpless," he said. "[Part II] provides a definite protection for students on this campus. And I would be absolutely opposed to suspending it." Graduate and Professional Student Assembly representative Rhonda Williams said suspending the code would leave students without a means of recourse. "I don't think people realize the reality of being a racial minority in a white-dominated institution," she said. "And what guarantee do we have that if we suspend this code, racial slurs won't run rampant?" While several members said they oppose eliminating Part II, almost everyone felt some change needs to be made. Several Council members suggested the enforcement of Part II, and not the policy itself, may be the cause of the problem. "If we don't suspend [Part II], then we'll continue to have no fair system of judicial procedures to enforce it," College sophomore Mike Nadel said. Interim President Claire Fagin said after the meeting she feels some "very interesting points of view were expressed." "The big thing, I thought, that was very clear was that a large number of students don't want to suspend Part II, but they recognize it is flawed," she said. "There was a strong sense that the entire judicial system is flawed, not necessarily the policy."