EDITORIAL: Gag Me With a Rule

In a cowardly move, interimIn a cowardly move, interimPresident Claire Fagin passedIn a cowardly move, interimPresident Claire Fagin passedthe buck on the speech code.In a cowardly move, interimPresident Claire Fagin passedthe buck on the speech code._______________________________ After months of healthy debate, Interim President Claire Fagin chose not to suspend the University's speech code. Instead, the policy will be reviewed by the Commission on Strengthening the Community, then a separate committee will review the commission's results, and finally, a decision will be made on June 30. In a now long tradition of dodging tough decisions, Fagin has secured her distinction as one of Penn's most pusillanimous administrators. After the Orwellian speech debacles of last semester, Fagin knew she had to either end this policy or defend it. Sure the decision would be tough and some people would be angry about the choice, but a strong leader rises above the fray and bases her decision on what is right, not on what is popular. Unfortunately, Fagin is not this kind of leader. Her decision to table the future of the speech code to these committees and to delay a final decision until students are clear off campus and Fagin's bags are packed, reflects a cowardice that has infected College Hall. In her statement on the speech code, Fagin admitted the failure of the Racial Harassment Policy. She wrote that the policy is rarely used and when it is, "widespread dissatisfaction has occurred." In fact, Fagin informed us that racial harassment has actually increased since the code's implementation. But instead of removing this admitted failure of a policy, Fagin has decided to subject the University to it anyway. The rationale is simple. The policy "symbolizes institutional opposition to hatred and verbal abuse," and even though the policy is a lemon, "the symbol should not be summarily removed." Unfortunately, the speech code is more than a symbol. Ask Eden Jacobowitz how real the speech code is. Talk to the numerous students and professors who – out of fear of a JIO inquisition – bite their tongues instead of speak their minds, and they will tell you about the code's symbolic power to chill free expression. Along with the symbolic value of the speech code, Fagin cited the recent threatening phone calls and bomb threats to DuBois College House and other residences as a reason to keep the policy in effect. In her scurrying for a way out of this quagmire, Fagin overlooked the fact that these type of calls are not covered by the Racial Harassment Policy, but by the University's Code of General Conduct as well as federal, state, and city laws. The Racial Harassment Policy only contains the speech code and plans for its implementation. Scratching it would in no way affect the University's ability to prosecute threatening phone callers. Contrary to Fagin, we see a very different lesson in these calls. No policy, including our current broad one, can stop this form of anonymous terror and the hateful beliefs that drive it. If everyone at Penn felt that they could openly speak on campus without facing official rebuke, then these ideas could be challenged, criticized, and exposed for their invalidity in the academic tradition of discourse. And if some felt that they could not civilly and legally convey their beliefs, then the police would move in. With this admittedly flawed policy still in effect, one would think that nothing has changed. But it has. Under the previous policy, students were at least given the due process – albeit extremely faulty – of the Judicial Inquiry Officer. Now, all racial harassment cases will presumably be investigated, tried, and decided by Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson. And you thought Robin Read had too much power. However, there is a glimmer of hope in this policy change. Harassment as defined by federal, state, or city laws will not be handled by Lazerson. In line with our long-held stance, real attorneys and real courts will apparently handle these complaints, and hopefully this will continue after June. But this assumed policy change is hardly a silver lining. We are angered and insulted that Fagin has refused to provide the leadership incumbent upon a university president. To its credit, the University community debated and discussed this issue forcefully and intelligently as Fagin requested. We have all been waiting for this overdue decision, and now we are left with bureaucratic promises. We are sick and tired of having a vital issue and a fundamental human right such as free expression bounced from one stacked committee to another. Her cowardice is sickening. If Fagin were still a practicing nurse, she would be guilty of malpractice. She has refused to give students the First Amendment rights that a University needs to survive as an intellectually vibrant institution. She has pulled the plug on free expression.