The University has a multitude of policies that standardize and regulate its actions in a variety of fields -- ranging from undergraduate drinking to alumni donations. But having experienced the controversy regarding the alteration of a photograph for its commencement brochure, the University is still not planning to implement any policy to ensure that such incidents will not happen again.
The questions over the possible development of an unambiguous, University-wide policy on the issue of photo manipulation began when it was publicized that the Office of the University Secretary edited a photograph of 2003 College graduate Arshad Hasan. The photo editing consisted of blackening out a Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender rainbow tassel that Hasan wore in celebration of gay pride.
"We are not going to create a new University policy for an isolated incident that everyone agrees was a mistake," University spokeswoman Lori Doyle said. She added that no written policy currently exists on the matter, saying instead the University will continue to use "good common sense" in the future.
But if the approach of the University on the issue is to remain unchanged, some question whether Penn can ensure that such an incident will not recur.
"It is disappointing that this mistake isn't enough impetus for the University to do something -- to take some concrete action," Asian Pacific Student Coalition Chairwoman and College senior Rohini Khanna said. She added that although it must be hard to account for all the different scenarios that could be encountered, the University should learn something from its error.
Penn is not the only university that has been involved in an incident regarding photo manipulation. In fall 2000, it was publicized that the University of Wisconsin-Madison had -- in an attempt to project an image of diversity -- altered the cover photograph of its admission brochure by including a minority student who was not originally present in the photograph.
After the controversy, "We created a written policy that more clearly articulated what had been our policy for a long time," Director of Communications for University of Wisconsin-Madison Amy Toburen said.
Furthermore, Toburen wrote in an e-mail interview that university officials "felt that we needed to draft [these guidelines] in written form so that there could be no misunderstanding among our own staff and so that we could share it with others who may not be part of our central communications office."
The current University of Wisconsin-Madison guidelines clearly define that an alteration "is any digital addition or subtraction of one or more visual elements, substantially changing the content of the image." It furthermore delineates between those alterations that are not allowed and those that are considered appropriate like "cosmetic touch-up of images for the purpose of color balancing [and] removal of blemishes."
Although the purported motivations for the alterations are different -- University of Wisconsin-Madison officials admitted that it was intentional, while Penn officials have said that there were no political motivations behind the alteration -- some see a common thread between the two incidents.
"We would like the University to develop a policy of editing of photographs and we are more than willing to work with them on [the development of] this policy," College senior and member of the LGBT Center Advisory Council Jesse Salazar said. "It is important that the University Communications reflect the diversity of the University and are attentive to the multicultural issues on campus so that all students feel like they are represented when Penn chooses to represent itself."
But it is unclear if the University will actually change its stance or implement a coherent policy to ensure that similar controversies do not arise in the future.
"It has not been an issue for this university [prior to the Hasan case] and we don't expect it to be one" in the future, Doyle said.
With the technological advances of digital manipulations of photographs, the questions arising about the ethical norms are ever more pertinent.
But the lack of concrete photo alteration and manipulation policy can also have some legal ramifications for the University, according to legal scholars.
"There is an area of law, invasion of privacy law, that makes it a civil offense to publish [a photograph] in a way that portrays a person in a false light," Law professor Anita Allen-Castellitto said. "You can't publish photographs that distort reality. Even if there are some bases for the picture, it can't [legally] distort reality."
Allen-Castellitto added that assortment of questions arising from this incident are far from misguided, and that the ethics and legality of the incident should be publicly discussed even further.
