Confusion follows harassment decision

Despite a detailed statement, the exact status of the University's Racial Harassment Policy, and the meaning of Interim President Claire Fagin's recent decision on the code depends on whom you ask. Fagin said Monday she will not suspend the current policy, but will form a committee to find a replacement policy by June 30, when Fagin's and Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson's terms are supposed to end. While the University searches for this replacement, all racial harassment charges will be handled by the provost's office, the statement says. At the heart of both the racial harassment policy and the controversy surrounding it is Part II, the section of the policy which forbids verbal or symbolic behavior that demeans a person on the basis of race, color, ethnicity or national origin. In the days following Fagin's announcement, there has been a great deal of confusion as to whether Part II will still be in effect until a replacement policy is found. "What we are doing has not revoked the policy, but greatly altered it," Fagin said yesterday. She also said she did not approve of the words "dumped," "abandoned," or "keeping" to describe what her announcement has done to the policy. All three words were used in newspaper headlines to characterize her decision on the code. But she added that saying "the policy is history as of June 30" would be accurate. On the status of the policy until then, however, there are conflicting opinions. Assistant to the President Steven Steinberg, who helped write the code and Fagin's published decision, said yesterday that the entire Racial Harassment Policy, including Part II, is still official University policy. "The entire policy is still in effect and still enforceable," Steinberg said. "But, the system [we hope to move to] will be very different in its approach to the issue of student conduct and civility." Fagin said that for now, "the buck stops" with Lazerson. And Lazerson's executive assistant Linda Koons said yesterday that the policy, including Part II, is still in place, and will be enforced under the new guidelines. "This not a suspension, this is a replacement," Koons said. "[The policy] is still in effect." But Lazerson sees the situation differently. In the University's televised town meeting Wednesday night, Lazerson tried to clear up confusion over the administration's decision and said Part II will not be enforced. "Read the documents and see what they say," he said. "We are not enforcing Section II of the Racial Harassment Policy." · Some have said Fagin's decision, which calls for the provost's office to handle any complaints under the racial harassment code, is the equivalent of a no-confidence vote in the University's judicial system and new Judicial Inquiry Officer Steven Blum. Fagin said she would not comment on the University's judicial system in general, but noted that everyone she had spoken to before making her decision had indicated the University judicial system's handling of racial harassment cases "had gone amuck." But she maintained that her decision does not reflect negatively on Blum. "I'm thrilled with Steven Blum," Fagin said. "We would never have put this forward without talking to him and getting his input and approval." Blum said yesterday he does not interpret Fagin's decision as an indictment of the judicial system. "The Provost was in close communication with me and I am very supportive of what he is trying to do and I told him that," Blum said. Under the new enforcement policy put forth by Fagin and Lazerson, a complaint that falls under the racial harassment policy – but not under city, state or federal laws or other University rules – will be reported to Lazerson. He will then recommend mediation between the two parties with an advisor, who may be a faculty member or a student, such as a residential advisor, Blum said. Fagin described Lazerson as "the screen" that will prevent matters from being settled in the University judicial system – which she said will prevent a repeat of last semester's "water buffalo" incident. Fagin said RAs have already been informed of this new mediation policy. "We want to settle this as close to the source [of conflict] as possible," Fagin added. If mediation fails, the parties must go back to the provost who will then decide what to do with the case. Fagin said because no racial harassment complaints have been brought since her announcement, it is difficult to say what procedures Lazerson will use. Koons said the judicial system will still be used to enforce the policy if the parties cannot resolve their differences through mediation. She said it is up to Lazerson whether a case will go to the JIO.