Racial harassment policy meeting turns nasty

A meeting Wednesday to discuss possible alternatives to the University's racial harassment policy rapidly turned into a bickering match, with people speaking over one another and arguing over the meaning of the term "politically correct." The meeting was called by the Society for Constitutional Rights at Penn, a group of law students interested in preserving First Amendment rights on campus. Members met to discuss their views with Board of Trustees Vice Chairperson Gloria Twine Chisum, who is heading the Commission on Strengthening the Community. After Chisum's opening remarks, students began attacking the current code. "The speech code works against the open environment because people aren't willing to speak up if they aren't on the politically correct side," law student Matthew Daniels said. "You are entitled to your opinion," Chisum responded. Chisum told the approximately 30 students present that she thinks the harassment policy will be changed "in one way or another." "I don't think the speech code is going to last very long," she said. "It is my job to create an intellectually productive environment. "The First Amendment issue is a small part of the problem," she continued. "Academic honesty and the freedom to exchange information are essential in a university environment." Law student Adam Candeub then presented the group's platform. "As a private institution, Penn is not legally subject to First Amendment guarantees?. If Penn considers itself a university dedicated to the free exchange of ideas, Penn should embrace guarantees of free expression," he said. The discussion quickly moved on to the commission which Chisum is chairing. "[The] commission was founded in June, in part to [address] the events of the spring, but not totally," Chisum said. "There are tensions on this campus, and the commission was formed to deal with these tensions. These [issues] don't just include racial tensions." The commission has been meeting with student groups and is conducting a survey to determine students' opinions of current policies. The survey, which will be given to a random sample of the student population at the University, will ask about the speech code as well as all forms of harassment, Chisum said. Present policies were last altered in 1990, after a court ruling that the racial harassment policy of the University of Michigan was "too vague." The University's code was similar, and was modified to avoid possible legal troubles, Chisum explained. The commission's interim report is due in January and the final recommendation is scheduled to be presented next March, she said. During the session, several students voiced unhappiness with the current system. Chisum said even members of the University's legal staff feel students would be just as protected under other areas of the student behavior code if the racial and sexual harassment sections are eliminated. Despite the airing of their ideas, many students at the meeting left dissatisfied. "I don't feel I am 'entitled to my opinion' under this code," Daniels said.