New 'conduct' code gets mixed reaction

The new Code of Student Conduct -- which was approved by Interim President Claire Fagin last week and will become effective tomorrow -- has received a mixed reaction from students, faculty and administrators on campus. Part III (d) of the code states that while "the University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs?the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action." But it goes on to state that "student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or University regulations or policies." Some praised the code for allowing genuine freedom of expression at the University. Others said the code was too vague and could not be enforced. College senior and Undergraduate Assembly member Dan Schorr said he was pleased with the new code. "I think it's a good solution to the debate that's been raging over the past few years at Penn and I hope other campuses use it as a model," he said. "For the most part it will protect freedom of speech on campus while still addressing the concerns of civility." Committee on Strengthening the Community Chairperson Gloria Chisum agreed. "It's a very good statement [that is] consistent with what the Commission on Strengthening the Community recommended," she said. "It emphasizes that students have both rights and responsibilities." History Professor Alan Kors also praised the University for what he called "an honest attempt to abolish the speech code," but he said that one essential clause is missing and several paragraphs should be rephrased. "It desperately needs an equal protection clause," he said. "No one [should] be prosecuted for any offense that would be tolerated from another member of the community." Kors added that the inclusion of such a clause would "ensure the abolition of the single most frightening aspect, morally, of the prior code -- which was its double standard." In addition, Kors said part III (d) of the code is unnecessarily vague, giving it a "potential for abuse." "There's no way of knowing what it means," he said, referring to the sentence that speech "may be subject to discipline." College junior Eden Jacobowitz -- who was charged under the old Racial Harassment Policy for yelling "water buffalo" at five black women -- agreed that part III (d) is still ambiguous and said it is not much different from the last code. "This new speech code still allows the school to punish on the basis of speech," he said. "I understand how other people can read into it more optimistically, but it takes experience to realize what kind of crap the school is up to again." But Schorr said the code had to be somewhat ambiguous for it to work. "To a limited extent it is ambiguous, but you can't formulate a speech regulation without being ambiguous," he said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's notion of "clear and present danger," which Schorr says "has a lot of leeway for interpretation." Bob Schoenberg, coordinator for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Community at Penn program, said reaction in the gay community is similar to reaction in any community -- varied. "The lesbian, gay, bisexual community is not of one mind politically," he said. "There are people who have the strong conviction that speech per se can be hurtful and should be punishable, and others who believe that despite the fact that there are names they are called which are hurtful to them, that others have the right to speak freely. "It is difficult to define what is hurtful to the extent that it should be punishable," he added. Jacobowitz, who said he thinks "water buffalo" would not be punishable under the new policy even though it should not have been considered under the old policy either, added that the University could have solved the speech code debate in one sentence. "Basically the school should just say, 'students at the University of Pennsylvania have the same rights as people everywhere else in the United States," he said.