Decision resembles UA proposal

Last September, Undergraduate Assembly Vice Chairperson Scott Sher was faced with the difficult task of writing a resolution dealing with Part II of the Racial Harassment Policy that would appease all parties. He decided on a motion asking Interim President Claire Fagin to keep the policy until the administration could come up with an "alternative and comprehensive" plan to replace it. Sound familiar? Several UA members last night noted the striking resemblance between Fagin's decision and Sher's resolution, which the UA approved September 26. Fagin announced yesterday that she will not revoke Part II of the Racial Harassment Policy, the so-called "speech code", until June 30. In the meantime, she will organize a committee to design an alternative policy to go into effect after Part II is revoked. "It's fair to say we played a part in the decision, although we're probably not solely responsible," said UA member Laura Amrofell. UA representative Rashad Ibrahim, whose Human Rights League is lobbying intensely in favor of maintaining Part II, said he was skeptical about the impact of the UA on Fagin's decision but was pleased by it nevertheless. "If I said that the UA contributed to it in any way I'd be overstating our impact," he said. But, "I'm glad the administration's approach nonetheless coincides with what we suggested." Ibrahim added that, before the decision, the Human Rights League presented Fagin with 1,181 signatures and 746 form letters asking her not to change Part II of the Racial Harassment Policy. UA representative Dan Schorr said he was "enraged" by the decision. "They're going to make a decision [on June 30], two months after students leave," he said. "They're delaying the decision – if the policy is wrong, it shouldn't be in effect at all. "It seems to me they're trying to please both sides by leaving [Part II] in but implying that they won't enforce it. Nothing's been resolved." When the administration selects the committee to devise the new policy, UA member Dan Debicella said, it should select a committee that is diverse and student-based. "If they don't pick a committee that represents all views and is made up mostly of students, it's going to be a farce," he said. Ibrahim said he, too, is concerned with the committee the administration is selecting. "The concern many have is that they will offer us a less effective alternative," he said. "In particular, there's a fear that the administration will offer an alternative that provides no guarantees against verbal forms of racial harassment." Several UA members said Fagin's decision will allow their body to focus on other issues. "It's going to become a lot more peripheral," Debicella said. "There's a lot of issues I want to deal with and my time's been dominated by this issue." Ibrahim, however, said the issue is far from dead. "Any commitment to fight racial intolerance must be indefinite," he said. "Racism is real and long-term."

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