661 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/19/91 9:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney said yesterday he opposes a U.S. House bill which would allow private university students to sue for free speech violations if they are punished under unconstitutional university codes. The bill, proposed last month by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), prohibits universities and colleges from punishing students "solely on the basis of conduct that is speech." Currently, the University's private-school status protects it from having to comply with Constitutional guidelines on free speech. "I'm all in favor of free speech," Hackney said. "But I'm not in favor of the federal government trying to enforce discipline on campus." Hackney has been a staunch advocate of open expression and has spent the last year revising the University's racial harassment policy. If the bill, which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, becomes law, the plan could alter the University's formulation and enforcement of a racial harassment policy, which some see as directly combatting free speech. University Federal Relations Director Robert Canavan said Wednesday the administration will join the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in its opposition to the bill. Hackney said that while Hyde's bill would "allow people to say whatever they want," he thinks the University should strive to protect free speech and protect people from harassment at the same time. The House bill seems to attack the formulation of anti-harassment policies on campuses around the country because it gives open expression precedence over protection from harmful speech. Throughout the year-long debate at the University, the two tenets have repeatedly come into conflict. But Sam Stratman, a spokesperson for Rep. Hyde, said yesterday that despite criticisms, the bill is not designed to support harassment of any sort. He pointed to the fact that not all types of speech, such as obscenity and racial and sexual slurs, are protected under the Constitution. Stratman insisted the bill would only cover students who were punished for speech that is protected by the First Amendment. "No one supports and condones any form of harassment," Stratman said. "Harassment rightly considered is not protected by the bill." The bill could directly affect the University's formulation of a racial harassment policy because a code similar to the University's was struck down in a Michigan court two years ago for being unconstitutionally vague. Law School Dean Colin Diver said this week the University's policy would face a similar fate under the proposed law. But Hackney said he is confident his new anti-harassment code would comply with the Constitution and with the Hyde bill. "I believe the kind of policy we're developing would be all right," Hackney said.
(04/17/91 9:00am)
The Ombudsman's latest report on campus sexual harassment again cites graduate students as the most vulnerable target, representing 12 of the 16 cases reported to the office. The report, published in yesterday's Almanac, is a further elaboration of a report released early this year. It tallies the 16 sexual harassment complaints reported directly to the Ombudsman's office, as well as 26 other complaints forwarded to the office by outside agencies. Of the 16 cases reported to the office, 15 were filed by students. The new report offers some new information but few details on the 42 sexual harassment complaints filed between July 1, 1989, and June 30, 1990. It instead describes common themes among complaints and characterizes situations where individuals have felt sexually harassed. The report singles out graduate students as "the members of our community most vulnerable to sexual harassment." "In their student role they rely on close relationships with one advisor or at most with a few mentors to develop professionally for what they hope will be their life's career," the report states. "The student is almost entirely dependent on the faculty member's judgements, evaluations, and references, both during the years of University experience and thereafter on the job market." The summary also repeats previous statements that the complaints resulted in letters of reprimand, salary freezes and at least one case of expulsion for offenders. Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Vice Chair Elizabeth Hunt said last night both GAPSA and the Graduate Student Associations Council frequently hear stories of sexual harassment from graduate students. "I think sexual harassment is a problem pretty much limited to graduate students and it is, at this point, somewhat a byproduct of the thesis-writing professor-student relationship," Hunt said. "Professors are notorious for abusing that." She characterized sexual harassment as one of the more disturbing abuses of the professor-student relationship, but said even asking students to do menial chores such as feeding parking meters or babysitting constitutes a form of harassment. Hunt said she hopes for the appointment of a graduate student advocate for students to turn to in these instances. She said such an advocate would help balance the power professors wield over the students they advise. "Just because you're an apprentice doesn't mean you're a galley slave or a bedroom slave or any-other-type-of-room slave," Hunt added. University regulations describe sexual harassment as "any unwarranted sexual attention" that either "involves a stated or implicit threat to the victim's academic or employment status; has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's academic or work performance; and/or creates an intimidating or offensive academic, living, or working environment."
(04/11/91 9:00am)
Phillips would not reveal the results of the investigation but said the report would be discussed at next month's Council meeting. The faculty committee's review was done in accord with last May's Council resolution which said that the Army and Navy ROTC programs would be kicked off campus by June 1993 unless they abide by "the spirit and the letter of the University's non-discrimination policy with respect to sexual and affectional preference." The resolution also calls for the University to work with other colleges to "pressure the Department of Defense to abolish its policy of discrimination against gay men and lesbian women." Council members voted for the resolution in response to allegations from a former University student enrolled in the Naval ROTC program who said that he was harassed at the campus' unit when he revealed that he is gay. -- Roxanne Patel
(03/05/91 10:00am)
Last October, Douglas Hann, a junior at Brown University, celebrated his 21st birthday as most students do -- drinking and spending time with friends. But a Brown judicial board found his actions that evening to go beyond partying. The board ruled they were harassment. Hann's birthday celebration began a four-month long investigation at Brown, which ended in his expulsion. According to The New York Times, Hann yelled an an obscenity and the word "nigger" in a courtyard. But a witness told the Times that the comment did not appear to be directed at any person. Then, a student in a nearby dormitory opened his window and shouted "Keep it down," the Times reported. In response, Hann yelled "faggot," an obscenity, and "Jew" at the student in the window, the witness said. A disciplinary council of five faculty and administrators and five students determined that Hann's words violated Brown's harassment policies. They also considered the fact that Hann had a record of verbal harassment and that he was drinking at the time of the incident in assigning his punishment. Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Council on Education, who both track "hate crimes," said that this is the first known expulsion of a student for using "hate speech." Hann did not deny the charges, but refused to tell the Times either what he said during the incident or at the hearing. He added that the charges presented at the hearing were inexact. Brown's policy prohibits any behavior which causes harm to any persons or property, disrupts or shows "flagrant disrespect for the well-being of others." The Tenets of Community Behavior, which student's agree to abide by when they enter the university, defines harassment as "subjection of another person, group or class of person . . . based on race, religion, gender, handicap, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation." It also prohibits "drug and/or alcohol related behavior." In a statement released last month, Brown President Vartan Gregorian said he could not comment on any specific case, but he explained what the harassment policy says and how it is applied. "The universities of our nation are and must remain sanctuaries for the exchange of ideas -- even unpopular ones," the statement read. "We cannot compromise on this principal . . . The university's most compelling challenge is to achieve a fruitful balance between respecting the right of its individual members to operate and speak freely in pursuit of the truth and fostering a climate of mutual respect and adherence to accepted community values and the standards of conduct." As the University examines its own racial harassment policy, many on campus said this week that Hann's situation hits close to home. For over a year students, faculty and administrators have debated whether punishments like Hann's are a First Amendment violation or protect people from physical or emotional harm. The University's current racial harassment policy stipulates that harassment must threaten or interfere with the victim's academic work or employment or create an intimidating or offensive environment. President Sheldon Hackney's October draft for a revised policy calls for a narrowed definition of harassment. To be considered harassment, incidents must pass a three-part test -- they must be intended to "demean, insult or stigmatize" a person on the basis of race; be addressed to the person or group it demeans; and make use of "fighting words" intended to incite violence or their non-verbal equivalents. Following severe criticism from students and faculty that the policy gives leeway to those intending to insult others rather than those who want to promote open discussion, Hackney decided in December to revise the draft. Hackney, who will present the revised draft at University Council in March, said last week that it is difficult to say whether Hann's actions would have violated University policies. He said that the news accounts of the incident do not give enough information about the exact circumstances of the case to "make a clear determination" about whether Hann's punishment was fair. Others who have been involved in the discussion of the harassment policy on campus said that while the University's policies are slightly different than Brown's, the issues faced by the two universities are similar. Physics Professor Michael Cohen, who initially pushed for a revamping of the University's policies, said this week that he could not judge Hann's case because he is not aware of the precedents on the Brown campus. But he said if the University expelled a student in a similar situation, he would protest the action because other "more serious acts of harassment" have gone unpunished here. "The Castle affair was the clearest example of racial harassment which has occurred on this campus or anywhere else," Cohen said. "If the perpetrators in that case had been white and the victim black, all the perpetrators would have been expelled and [the case] would have attracted national attention from all the media." Cohen said this is an example of how the University's policy is unevenly applied. Black Inter-Greek Council President Kathryn Williams said that the draft that Hackney submitted to University Council last fall will make it even more unlikely that a student who did something like Hann would be expelled here. "The University has such an aversion to labeling something as racial harassment," Williams said. She said the draft puts the burden of proof on minority students who are victimized because the victim must prove intent. Williams emphasized that the University must have both a working harassment policy and must adhere to it for minority students to be protected. Last week the ACLU announced that it will assist Hann in appealing his expulsion. But even after the appeal is heard and decided upon, debate over what should constitute harassment will continue.
(02/20/91 10:00am)
The appeal of a sexual discrimination case won by the University in 1989 will be indefinitely delayed because the plaintiff has failed to file a formal request for a new lawyer. The appeal, filed by former Van Pelt College House administrative fellow Ann McHugh, was scheduled to begin last month, but was postponed when McHugh fired her lawyer, federal court clerk Martin Bryce said this week. Bryce said the case cannot be rescheduled until McHugh files a written request for new counsel. McHugh could not be reached for comment last night. Bryce said yesterday that even if a formal request were received, the court would not be able to schedule the trial until May. "We are going to take no action until May," said Bryce. "The current trial schedule is too busy." Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg, the attorney who is representing the University in the case, said the indefinite postponement will not affect the University's case. In the postponed suit, McHugh claims she was constantly harrassed by a student while serving as a Van Pelt College House administrative fellow and Van Pelt officials did not sufficiently attempt to stop the abuse despite her protests. She contends that she was fired after taking her complaints to the University Ombudsman. The University maintains she filed her complaint about harassment after she was fired. McHugh contends in court documents that she was fired solely because of her complaint. The University said in its formal reply that she was fired because she was unable to "perform effectively" in her position. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided in 1989 that McHugh's dismissal was not based on sexual discrimination. McHugh decided to appeal this decision through the courts. The EEOC reviews all unfair firing claims and decides whether they should continue through the court system. The Commission only rarely prevents a claim from going to court.
(02/18/91 10:00am)
Peter Laska always wanted to be in the military. "I had always grown up with a really strong sense of being patriotic and doing my part for the country," the 1988 College graduate said last week. "I wanted to protect the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech." But shortly after joining the University's Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps program, Laska discovered one thing blocking his path to becoming a military officer -- by the end of his second year at the University, Laska realized he was gay. "I knew that my sexuality had no bearing on my worth as a person, or upon my abilities as an officer candidate," he said. But ROTC, like the military in general, has long excluded gay men and lesbian women and explicitly forbids them from service. And Laska said that in the beginning of his junior year, the University's NROTC unit began an "officially condoned program of harassment" against him. He said it included "intimidation, verbal abuse, and interrogations." NROTC Commander Captain Lyle Lewis, who was not at the University when Laska was enrolled, denies that any such program exists at the unit. He said if he learned of one, he "wouldn't let it happen." Laska said he informed NROTC of his homosexuality in his junior year and was subsequently placed on leave and left the program. Laska said he thought that marked the end of his relationship with the armed forces. But in November 1989, he received "a letter demanding that I. . . pay the Navy $25,600" -- the amount the Navy had doled out for his ROTC scholarship. University ROTC commander Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Warnement said that such a request is standard. "We have the authority to revoke the scholarship and require repayment of the scholarship to the taxpayers," he said last week. Laska said while the financial pressure being exerted by the Navy "is a great concern," he said "they're certainly going to have to fight me all the way." Laska took his fight to University officials by writing a letter, addressed both to President Sheldon Hackney and the University Council, explaining his situation and his allegations of discrimination. This letter served as a catalyst for a heated debate across the University, and the University has since joined a national effort to push the Department of Defense to change its policy. · The University's Nondiscrimination Policy states that the University "does not discriminate on the basis of race, color sex, sexual orientation . . . in the administration of its educational policies, programs or activities, admissions policies and procedures, scholarship and loan programs, employment, recreational, athletic or other University- administered programs." At the same time, Naval policy states that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the naval environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct . . . seriously impairs the accomplishment of the naval mission." U.S. Army spokesperson Major Robert Shepherd said last week that this is the policy of the Army and all the armed forces. "If there is overt homosexuality, that has been a disqualifier for a good amount of time," he said. Until Laska's case went before University Council last May, the University's and the military's opposing views went virtually uncontested. But Laska's complaint has brought the inconsistencies in policies to the forefront, forcing the University to choose between the two. "The core [problem] is that they find gays and lesbians not fit for military service," Robert Schoenberg, assistant director of Student Life Programs, said last week. "It's the principle. This institution has a policy that says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation." Many student and faculty leaders agree. At the May 1990, University Council meeting, members unanimously approved a resolution calling for an evaluation of ROTC's compliance with this policy. The resolution states that the ROTC program will be kicked off campus in June 1993 "unless it adheres to the spirit and the letter of the University's non-discrimination policy with respect to sexual and affectional preference." "People were very angry at the University Council [meeting]," said Education Professor Kenneth George, chairperson of the Faculty Senate Conduct Committee, which is investigating the University's ROTC and NROTC units. "To get a letter from an undergraduate about how he had been harrassed . . . they were incensed and passed this motion." Microbiology Professor Robert Davies, then chairperson of the Faculty Senate, said while there was considerable discussion in Council over the resolution, there was universal accord. "To everyone's surprise, it passed virtually unanimously," he said last week. "We all felt we should stand by the University's [nondiscrimination] policy." "I think it's quite unacceptable that the Army continues this vendetta against gays and lesbians," he added. The resolution also calls for the University to work with other universities to "pressure the Department of Defense to abolish its policy of discrimination against gay men and lesbian women." "It seems clear that if ROTC would accept gays and lesbians, then there would not be a problem keeping them on campus," George said. "If the ROTC is willing to change, then ROTC can stay on campus." But discussion about the issue has gone beyond the University Council's monthly meetings. Susan Garfinkel, chairperson of the Graduate and Professional Students Assembly, said GSAC last year passed a resolution calling for an investigation of ROTC on campus. "Discrimination against individuals within our society on the basis of ascribed category is an ongoing problem," she said last week "[It] should not exist within a university where a diversity of intellectual pursuits is valued." Undergraduate Assembly representative You-Lee Kim said she is preparing a resolution to present to the UA "demand[ing] that the ROTC, by the end of the upcoming academic year, either resolve its conflict with University policy, or get off campus." But Kim said she is not convinced that the resolution will pass. "It's going to be a bureaucratic mess, but I think it needs to be pushed," she said. "As student leaders, we should be on the forefront and not be reactionary, but very proactive." "If people want to serve their country, their sexual preference shouldn't have anything to do with it," she added. And Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alliance members agree wholeheartedly. Past co-chairperson Sheryl Rose said LGBA is watching the issue with interest. "To a certain degree, the issue, whether to allow ROTC to stay on campus challenges [the University's] integrity," the Engineering senior said last week. "It's a seemingly flagrant violation [of University policy] and the beliefs here that one does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation." While the University Council can pass resolutions, they are neither binding nor do they set University policy, according to Almarin Phillips, current chairperson of the University Council. The decision to remove the ROTC units from the University ultimately lies with President Hackney, several administrators said last week, who would make his decision after possible consultation with the Trustees. "He is free as the chief executive officer to treat [resolutions] as purely advisory," Phillips said. "[But] he is amazingly sensitive to what goes on in University Council." Assistant to the President Nick Constan said Hackney is very concerned about the issue, adding that if the committee investigating ROTC finds that it does discriminate against gays and lesbians, Hackney "would see it as a violation [of University policy.]" "It certainly is a dilemma that he understands," Constan added, saying Hackney has traditionally followed University Council recommendations. · But in trying to force changes in the ROTC program, the University is not just taking on its own program, but the entire Pentagon. NROTC head Lewis explained that his hands are tied when it comes to the policy. "It's [Department of Defense] policy," he said. "It has to do with all the armed forces." ROTC head Warnement agreed, saying that the University's unit is simply following orders. "I have absolutely no impact on that policy," he said. "I don't make it or influence it. We simply implement it." Army spokesperson Shepherd said the military itself cannot change Pentagon policy. He said only civilian government officials, including the Secretary of Defense and the Congress. Constan said that, in accordance to the University Council's resolution, Hackney has been pressing government officials to change the policy. He said the president wrote to Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney this summer -- joining several other schools, including Harvard University, Yale University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- in expressing his concern with DOD policy. In Washington, D.C., a handful of congressmen have been pushing the issue. Representative Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), one of only a few openly gay congressmen, has been at the forefront of the fight. Kate Dyer, an aide to Studds, said four prominent consortiums of universities have also asked that DOD explain its policy. She said together, they represent about 98 percent of all colleges and universities in the country. She also said their request was denied. But military officials say they have no plans to change the current policy. Pentagon spokesperson Major Doug Hart said last week that the DOD has only been contacted by "half a dozen" universities over the last year and is not concerned by current requests by the institutions to change their policy or leave campuses. "We of course hope that universities would allow" the units to stay, he said. "[But] DOD policy is very firm."
(02/04/91 10:00am)
To the devoted, P.C. is a way of life that encompasses activities, classes, language, food and friends. To its enemies, P.C. is a threat to the First Amendment. To others, P.C. is simply a joke. According to its doctrine, it is not P.C to be a "freshman", but it is P.C. to be a "freshperson," and even more P.C. to be a "first-year student." It's not P.C. to be "disabled." It used to be P.C. to be "handicapped," but now people prefer to be "handi-capable" or "differently-abled." It is not P.C. to own a "pet," but it is P.C. to have an "animal companion." · P.C. used to stand for personal computer. Now it stands for Politically Correct -- a buzzword which to some encompasses a new movement to challenge to the "white, male power structure." But to others it represents a major threat to free speech. In a perfect society, to be Politically Correct means to be educated and sensitive to the needs and concerns of everyone in the community. It applies both to the terminology that people use and how they behave. But some believe that, in an attempt to make a better world, people have gone too far and are now trampling on free expression rights. One of the most frequently occurring debates over P.C. at the University comes over what labels to apply to people of different races. The Oriental Studies department is currently embroiled in such a dispute, with many students saying the term "Oriental" is derogatory because it is a label chosen by those outside the group it is referring to. Those who support P.C. say that only the group being labeled can choose what they want to be called. "I have no right as a white person to tell Asians what they can and can't call themselves," Women's Center Director Elena DiLapi said last week. But the labelling goes beyond racial groups. Gays and lesbians, handicapped people and even rape victims state that they should be able to chose what they are called. DiLapi said the P.C. term "rape victim-survivors" shows respect and understanding for those involved. "The term survivor came out of women speaking for themselves," DiLapi said. "They have the individual strength to survive, to go on with their lives. It is reality for them. It's not just a semantic thing in their lives." Progressive Student Alliance member Amandee Braxton said last week the idea of changing groups' names is not new. She pointed to the changing terms for blacks, from the term "negro" to "African-American", as an example. Braxton added, however, that the monicker "African-American" has not been as quick to take hold because of the positive images slogans like "black power" and "black is beautiful" hold. But History Professor Alan Kors, an ardent libertarian and a vocal critic of some of the University's policies regarding free speech, said last week that P.C. labels put limits on expression and hinder academic freedom. He said certain terms that are deemed un-P.C. can be illustrative. "[Most of the time] if you use a racially derogatory term, it is not Politically Correct," Kors said. "But if you called a black Republican an Uncle Tom, that would be social criticism." The history professor also said that P.C. tends to discriminate against non-liberals and non-minorities. But President Sheldon Hackney last week pointed out that colleges and universities are traditionally left-leaning, but not necessarily anti-conservative. "There is some pressure in the direction of Political Correctness," Hackney admitted. But, he said, "it's not official. It's that here, and at most other elite universities, the dominant mentality is liberal." However, College and Wharton senior Sue Moss, who is active in a national Democratic organization which supports P.C. ideals, said that P.C. does not exclude any political views. Although she is pro-choice, she said she considers fellow College senior Theresa Simmonds also P.C. because she is "anti-choice, but she is a feminist and she honestly believes that anti-choice is P.C.," Moss said. "She stands up for what she believes in." Simmonds however, prefers not to use the term, which she calls "condescending" and "a very superficial label." "With many people, I don't know that [Political Correctness] goes beyond the surface," said Simmonds, who recently was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. "It is not something you do to play a political game. It is much more deep-rooted than that." One of the first manifestations of P.C. labels at the University was the change from calling new students freshmen in official literature to calling them first-year students. Director of Residential Living Gigi Simeone said that the change from "freshman" to "first-year student" was made several years ago. It was already being used informally by many people, she added. "It is more accurate and more inclusive," Simeone said. "It more readily brings to mind both men and women." Residential Living's concern was not that they were being un-P.C., Simeone said, but rather that women felt uncomfortable or left out with the old term. "Our impulse is to do things to create communities that are supportive for all students," Simeone said. · The two-year-old Labor Day Diversity Education program for incoming students is, for many critics, at the heart of the argument at the University. The seminars, which are required for all freshmen, were started as an attempt to teach new students about different racial and ethnic groups and how to be tolerant of them. But critics say the seminars, like P.C. in general, have become an indoctrination, an attempt to tell freshmen what can and cannot be said at the University. History Professor Kors has long been one of the strongest opponents of the program. He said that the University, through the seminars and racial harassment policies, should not dictate what people can say. Instead, Kors said, "the proper response to speech is more speech." "[The program] hands people a moral agenda and tends to divide the University by race, gender and sexual orientation," Kors said. "It encourages people to perceive all events, however complex, through the filters of race and gender and sexual preference." He said that if the University had a mandatory Labor Day program and showed films of what a fetus looks like during abortion, the community would recognize the politicization. But currently, people don't see diversity education as a political issue, he said. "I see no group on this campus that has the moral superiority and should be given the right to give this campus moral training," Kors said. But College and Wharton senior Moss, who served as a Diversity Education facilitator, said the goal of the program is to raise sensitivity, not to indoctrinate students. "I hope that is not the way people see that day," Moss said. "What I try to do is make the people in my group aware." "I don't see that as an indoctrination process," Moss said. "Making people aware that these things are painful can be nothing but beneficial." President Hackney said the Diversity Education program is not indoctrination - "it's simply consciousness raising." But one of the most widely publicized disputes over P.C. invading the realm of free speech came over an incident surrounding the seminars. A student, involved in the planning of the Diversity Education program, wrote to an administrator with her concerns about the materials being presented. "My concern with the issue of diversity education lies primarily in my deep regard for the individual and my desire to protect the freedom of all members of society," the woman wrote. A University administrator wrote back, saying that the word "individual" is a " 'RED FLAG' phrase . . . which is considered by many to be RACIST." "Arguments that champion the individual over the group ultimately privileges [sic] the 'individuals' belonging to the largest or dominant group," the administrator's letter said. The letter has since been used by P.C. opponents as an example of the movement's restrictive nature. It has appeared in publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal to New York magazine. · Many say the term P.C. appeared at the University during the last couple of years, at the same time phrases and ideas like "diversity," "ethnocentrism" and "heterosexism" emerged on campus. But others say the idea is not new. Women's Center Director DiLapi said last month that she heard the term at least 10 years ago in the women's movement and in gay and lesbian communities. Regardless, P.C. has now invaded mainstream, college culture. And writers at publications from Newsweek to The Chronicle of Higher Education have stood up and taken notice. Whatever their political stand, the term P.C. seems to have polarized organizations and individuals. "The notion of Political Correctness is a caricature of the truth . . . it's satirical treatment of the real thing," Hackney said. "It's a conservative term used to satirize trends on campus, but there's a seed of truth to it." But College and Wharton senior Moss said the term P.C. connotes only positive images -- sensitivity, awareness and understanding. "I hope I am P.C.," Moss said last week. "I dedicate most of my life to that. I couldn't live with myself if I thought I was doing something that was not morally correct or not P.C." At the University, the Progressive Student Alliance is often named as an organization which works for "Politically Correct" ideals. But several PSA members said last week that they think the issue is "absurd." College sophomore and PSA member David Saries said he believes that it is good to go out and educate people about "justice and equality." But he said "the way that it has been turned around by some 'cliquey' group of people is absurd." "I don't know what politically correct is," Saries added. PSA member Braxton agreed that the term P.C. is "kind of an arrogant phrasing," but she said the basic principle of recognizing multiculturalism in the U.S. is a positive goal.
(01/30/91 10:00am)
An appeal of a sexual discrimination case the University won in 1989 was postponed yesterday after the plaintiff changed her attorney. The appeal, filed by former Van Pelt College House administrative fellow Ann Chandler McHugh, was scheduled to go before a federal court judge tomorrow. But McHugh and her attorney applied for a postponement because she is in the process of changing lawyers. In the suit, McHugh claims that she was constantly harassed by a student and Van Pelt officials did not attempt to stop the abuse despite her protests. Just days after taking her complaints to the University Ombudsman, she was fired, she contends. The complaint states that McHugh was fired solely because of her complaint. The University said in its formal reply that she was fired because she was unable to "perform effectively" in her position. The University also maintains that she filed her complaint to the Ombudsman after she was fired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided in 1989 that McHugh's dismissal was not based on sexual discrimination. McHugh decided to appeal this decision through the courts. The EEOC reviews all unfair firing claims and decides whether they should continue through the court system. The commission only rarely prevents a claim from go to court. McHugh is suing the University for reinstatement to her position as an administrative fellow and for reimbursement for her salary from 1987 to the present, plus interest. It is unclear why McHugh is making the change of attorneys, but the judge granted her new lawyer time to review the case. U.S. District Court officials said yesterday that they did not know when a new trial date will be set. McHugh's original attorney, Alan Epstein, declined to comment yesterday on why McHugh was seeking new counsel. University Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg said last week McHugh's case was "frivolous." He said McHugh has several flaws in her argument and the University has filed a countersuit.
(12/07/90 10:00am)
College junior John Shu, who published a column in Wednesday's DP which sharply criticized Interfraternity Council fraternities, told University Police yesterday that he had received several harassing calls since the column ran. And Wharton sophomore Susan Stone said she received a letter in her Steinberg-Dietrich Hall mailbox Wednesday which contained a sexually explicit message. Both columnists reported the incidents to University Police yesterday afternoon. Shu said that although he had already received several threatening calls from individuals, he decided to file a complaint after one caller told him "we're gonna kick your ass. You're a dead motherfucker." Shu said he did not know who threatened him, but that he suspected it had been a group of fraternity brothers. He said he is upset, but not suprised, that he has received anonymous phone calls complaining about his column. "I think it's unfortunate because if these fraternities want to be sensitive and diverse, then they need to accept that there are people who think their system is not the best," Shu said. Shu said he thinks it is possible that someone might try to take more direct action against him. Stone, who has written several columns this semester dealing with Christain views of controversial issues such as abortion, said that the she assumed she received the letter because of her columns. She said that she thinks the letter was written by a male student. She would not reveal what the letter said. Interfraternity Council officers and fraternity members and Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Assistant Director Eric Newman said yesterday that they are upset that Shu has received threats, saying that free expression should not be compromised. But IFC Vice President for Rush Dave Hecht, whom Shu singled out in his column, said that while some of the things Shu said are "worth looking into," the columnist offends people in the ways he presents his information and opinions. Hecht added that he believes Shu is lying about receiving death threats. "I think he is so radical in his approach that no one takes him seriously," Hecht said. OFSA Assistant Director Newman said that the calls should be investigated. "It's not an action that's acceptable to the University community," Newman said IFC President Bret Kinsella said yesterday that while he does not agree with Shu's characterization of fraternities, he would "fight to the death for his right to say it." "I don't even pretend to comprehend the mind that would issue a death threat as a joke or seriously," Kinsella said. Hecht said he opposes any kind of harassment, "including the form of harassment that John Shu did against me." In his column, Shu said Hecht held the "arrogant attitude that causes much of the friction between the IFC and the rest of the student body." "If we think someone might kill someone for an article in The Daily Pennsylvanian, then we need to reassess exactly where our society is headed," Hecht said.
(12/04/90 10:00am)
and ROXANNE PATEL No one is surprised that fraternities are at the center of the debate over the future over Locust Walk. The 10 chapters have some of the most convenient, centrally located houses on campus, and they occupy the only residential sites on the Walk. But fraternity members say they have been shocked at the allegations and anger that the issue has aroused. They knew that anti-Greek sentiment had been rising for years, but the vehemence of the attacks was unexpected. In their attacks on the all-fraternity Walk, critics have charged that the chapters foster sexism, racism and violence. The system has been barraged with charges of sexual harassment, elitism, and rape. Although they knew their organizations would be central in changing the Walk, Greek members say the Walk dispute has caused the entire system to be unfairly criticized. What began as a discussion over housing has become a battle over the fraternities' place in the University community. · The linchpin of the Walk debate has been the claim that Locust Walk does not represent the entire University because its residents -- members of 10 predominantly white fraternities -- do not reflect the racial, sexual, and ethnic diversity of the University. These claims are accompanied by complaints by women and minorities who say they avoid the Walk whenever possible because they feel at best excluded and at worst physically threatened when they walk to work or class. Lydia York, who received a graduate degree from Wharton in 1987, said last week that because of the Walk's atmosphere, she consciously avoided the Walk at night and on weekends. "At night, Locust Walk takes on sort of a carnival atmosphere," said York, co-chairperson of a recent alumni committee on campus life. "I don't want to say I ever felt physically threatened, but I thought 'What if the boys get out of hand?' " "Personally, I think that something that important on the campus should be a little less threatening," York added. The anti-fraternity factions were given ammunition in 1987 with the release of a report of an ad-hoc committee on racial and sexual harassment. The study, dubbed the Berg Report, states that according to evidence obtained by the judicial inquiry officer and the Office of Student Life, fraternities were responsible for the majority of racial and sexual harassment charges. The report is still cited by a broad coalition of anti-fraternity groups as evidence that fraternities should be thrown off of Locust Walk. Additionally, in a report released this fall, the Committee on University Life noted that many student and faculty members had said they would like the fraternity system to be abolished. While the report did not take a position on the issue, it suggested moving the 10 chapters off Locust Walk. Anti-fraternity sentiments became markedly more vocal last spring, when a group staged an impromptu "Take Back the Walk" protest during a rally which protested crimes against women and minorities on campus. This vocal stance continued through last semester and into this fall. In a book published in August, Anthropology Professor Peggy Sanday increased anti-Greek ire with charges against the fraternity system and specific allegations of sexual harassment against some Locust Walk chapters. In October, she said that her aim in writing Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood and Privilege on Campus was to help remove fraternities from Locust Walk within 10 years. Prompted by concern over reports of fraternities' harassment of women, some University Trustees who are also fraternity alumni have gone to their houses and explained that sexist behavior will not be tolerated, according to Trustee Richard Censits. "Fraternities provide people with the opportunity to get together and be part of a group," said Censits, who was a member of Beta Theta Pi when it occupied the space where the Sweeten Alumni Center now stands. "They don't have the right to hurt or be rude or crude to anyone." In response to these charges, fraternity members have gone on the offensive this year, accentuating their positives to counter the claims that they are intolerent and violent. They say that as an organized campus group, they have the best opportunity to counter racist and sexist behavior. Several fraternity brothers said many groups do not give them credit for their community service and social awareness programming. Consequently, brothers say, when they fight for their houses on Locust Walk, they feel that they are also fighting for a place as a legitimate group at the University. Sigma Alpha Epsilon President Mike Feinberg said defending fraternities' place in changing Locust Walk and defending the Greek system are "two different issues, but in a way it's the same thing." "On the one hand, the issue deals with pluralism, but on the other hand, the people most vocal about diversifying Locust Walk . . .are very anti-Greek and they want to see the fraternity system abolished," he said. Interfraternity Council President Bret Kinsella said last week he feels the Locust Walk fraternities can help the process of building a new Locust Walk. "Fraternities are in a unique position . . . to facilitate the pluralistic goal," Kinsella said. "Fraternities should be integrated in the process because they are first and foremost students of this University. [They] should have the opportunity to participate in a pluralistic campus and should help construct a pluralistic campus just as any other student." IFC President-elect Jim Rettew said last week that he does not fully understand why people are intimidated on Locust Walk. "Sometimes, people say fraternities make them feel uncomfortable," said Rettew, the current IFC secretary. "In a way I understand, but in another way I don't. Some of the guys living on Locust Walk are physically big, but they don't mean to be intimidating." "Fraternities were founded for all the right reasons: brotherhood, honor, trust, fraternity," Rettew added. "Once people get to know us, they will be able to get past this 'intimidating' stereotype." Rettew defended fraternities' place on Locust Walk, saying the Walk is not completely homogenous. "A key to diversity is integration, and fraternities provide the best means of this integration through perpetuating diversified interaction under a common roof in a fraternalistic bond," he said.
(11/27/90 10:00am)
At least one member of the University's teaching staff was forced to leave the University after sexually harassing an undergraduate, according to an Ombudsman report to be released today. The study, the first ever of its kind, states that a total of 87 allegations of sexual and racial harassment were filed during the 1989-90 academic year against faculty, students and staff. It says that the "most serious cases" involved sexual harassment by "members of the teaching staff of undergraduates who were their students." It also states that sanctions in these cases included salary freezes, letters of reprimand, and at least one "departure from the University." It does not specify if the individual or individuals were forced to leave or left voluntarily. Ombudsman Daniel Perlmutter declined to comment on the report last night. Associate Finance Professor Susan Wachter, who was ombudsman last year, said last night that she could not say anything about the departure beyond what was in the report. The report shows that 22 faculty members were charged with violations of the sexual and racial harassment policies, but does not state how many were found guilty of the allegations. It is not clear whether any of the cases are still under investigation. The report, to be printed in today's Almanac, states that approximately half of alleged harassment incidents were racial and half were sexual. It also says that there were three charges of ethnic harassment and four relating to sexual orientation. According to Assistant to the President Nicholas Constan, the report was compiled so that there will be a record of the number of complaints each year. He said the specific charges are not included because some may be unsubstantiated. Constan said it is difficult to judge the impact of the numbers since there is no previous report for comparison. He added, however, that the reports will play an important role in the future when trends will become evident. "I like that this sort of reporting will be done so we can come up with some comparisons later," he said. According to the report, the administration requested in May that academic officers and resource center directors report all allegations to the Ombudsman for compiling. Former Ombudsman Wachter said that the racial and sexual harassment policies, formally enacted in December 1988, mandate the annual report. The report states that of the 87 charges between July 1, 1989 and June 30, 1990, 12 are currently being investigated, 23 have been deemed unfounded, 25 were resolved and one went to a formal grievance procedure. It also says that 26 complainants did not want their allegations investigated. The most complaints, 60, were filed by staff, and students filed less than half that amount. Only one faculty complaint was reported. Only six of the complaints were against students, the report states, while 59 were against staff and 22 against faculty.
(11/19/90 10:00am)
When the federal government asks a landscape architecture professor to prove that his grant will not be used for anything obscene, you know things are getting serious. Since the controversy over federal arts funding erupted last year over a University-sponsored exhibit, the government has been looking at ways to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are not used for offensive artwork. And its long arm has reached into some unexpected places. Earlier this year, James Corner, an assistant professor of landscape architecture and regional planning, was asked to sign a voluminous document pledging that his aerial photographs of landscaping were not "obscene or indecent." He signed the document, but said that if he were a painter or a sculptor involved with "artistically explorative works," he might have chosen differently. Corner, whose project was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, is one of countless artists across the nation who has felt the heat of a fire kindled by the University-sponsored photography exhibit last year. But the aftermath of controversy surrounding the Robert Mapplethorpe photography exhibit, organized by the Institute of Contemporary Art, has affected dozens of people at the University. And most say that while they have not experienced direct censorship, they have been torn by a political struggle in which they must compromise their principles or lose funding. The University, led by President Sheldon Hackney, has vehemently supported the ICA throughout the 17-month ordeal, and has spoken out against the NEA restrictions. Nonetheless, University artists who depend on NEA grants to fuel their research find themselves at the mercy of the new NEA rules. · In 1988, the NEA-sponsored ICA exhibit, entitled Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment, was displayed in Meyerson Hall with little notice. The show then went on a cross-country tour which led to countless protests and counter-protests, the indictment of a Cincinnati museum director and a restrictive amendment to the NEA appropriations bill. In July 1989, the Mapplethorpe exhibit passed through the nation's capital, where Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) stumbled onto it and was shocked by some of the works -- particularly ones depicting homoerotic acts and naked children. Upon learning that taxpayers, through the NEA, had funded the show, Helms pointed to it -- along with an Andres Serrano exhibit which included a photo entitled "Piss Christ" -- to pass an amendment restricting Endowment funding. For more than a year, all NEA grant recipients, like Corner, had to sign the pledge swearing off obscenity. The debate over the now-weakened amendment thrust the ICA and the University, under Hackney's vocal leadership, into the national spotlight to fight against what critics termed "government-sponsored censorship." And since then, the ICA has been the target of struggles over NEA funding. The NEA appropriations bill said that any grants requested by the ICA must be posted on Capitol Hill for 30 days before consideration because of its role in the Mapplethorpe exhibit. And this summer, the National Council for the Arts, which oversees the NEA, turned down two of three grants despite previous approval by peer panels. ICA director Patrick Murphy said that the rejection, which was later reversed, was based on the grants' content but was meant as a punishment to the museum. "The feeling was that to give a grant to the Mappelthorpe museum would be an affront to Congress," Murphy said. According to David Morse, who handles the University's federal relations, the ICA receives the majority of the approximately $500,000 the University gets from the NEA annually. Other groups at the University which receive NEA grants, including the Morris Arboretum, the University Museum and the Graduate School of Fine Arts, have not been as prominent in the funding debate, but officials said last week the restrictions loom in the minds of all grant recipients. For most of its 25-year history, the NEA, which gives money to about 20 percent of all applicants, was widely praised by the arts community for its accomplishments, and it helped numerous well-known artists get their first break. But the fallout from the controversy surrounding the ICA's Mapplethorpe exhibit has changed everything, according to Murphy. "The NEA has severed themselves from their main constituency, the arts community, by trying to serve the political community," Murphy said last week. "There is a mistrust in the NEA and it will take years to build confidence in that agency again." "The atmosphere of the arts has suffered, but we may not know the repercussions for a number of years," he added. Officials from other University divisions that receive grants agreed with Murphy last week, saying free expression must be paramount in artistic endeavors and that the NEA obscenity amendment has hurt that principle. The University Museum recieves NEA grants for some exhibitions and for storage and conservation of artifacts. "The Museum feels strongly that we have a right for the free expression of ideas," said Museum associate director Gregory Posssehl, who received an NEA grant for conservation of South Asian artifacts. "If NEA policies should run counter to these ideas . . . if we were asked to sign it [an obscenity pledge], we wouldn't." The Graduate School of Fine Arts also gets NEA grants for educational programs, exhibits and research. "I think it's an abhorrent thing and a classically political thing to do," said William Braham, director of the school's research center, through which most of the school's grants come. "I fully agree with the University's decision to go attack congress." Braham said many grants professors get from the NEA, although small, are important seed grants, which are often essential to projects and can not be turned down easily as a form of protest. "It's a thing you would like to object to but not with your own money," he said. · Assistant Vice President for Policy Planning Morse, who keeps a close eye on the NEA for the University, noted that by and large it has been art institutions, rather than colleges and universities, that have lead the fight against the restrictions. The University, however, has played a unique role in the controversy, he said. "For the most part, the ball has been carried by arts community rather than higher education," Morse said. "But among higher education, we have become a leader." Morse gave much of the credit for bringing the University to the forefront of the fight to Hackney, who has been one of the most vocal individuals in the press and on Capitol Hill pushing against the restrictions. A former head of a local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Hackney has championed freedom of expression since his days as a fledgling provost at Princeton University in the early 1970s. Whether over the campus visit two years ago by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan or the current debate over the racial harassment policy, Hackney has always asserted open expression as one of his overiding principles. So, as he wrote in the July edition of Academe magazine, "when my summer of dicontentment was destroyed last August, first by the decision of the Corcoran Gallery not to exhibit the Mapplethorpe show, then by the Helms amendment to the NEA appropriation bill, I had a relatively easy time sorting though the issues and reaching a decision." Hackney said last week that because of the University's role in the NEA debate, he felt compelled to join the fray in September 1989, when he wrote a strongly worded criticism of Helms in The Chronicle of Higher Education. In addition to dismay over actions against the ICA, Hackney said he spoke out because he was afraid that government regulation of expression, once started, would find its way into other fields. "It seemed to me that if the same principal were applied, all sorts of government grants would have some sort of prior restraint attached to them," the president said last week. He added that he has been to Washington several times to lobby against restrictions, and officials from all over the University's art community praised Hackney for his efforts last week. ICA director Murphy said Hackney has been "very supportive of what we've been doing." Murphy added that his organization has not shifted its focus because of the NEA controversy. "Our reason for existing is the presentation to our constituency of art we believe in," Murphy said. "Art will sometimes affirm and sometimes challenge the values within our society." He said that his museum, which organizes funding for artists' exhibits, receives more works which deal with sexual issues than it did before the controversy. Approximately 40 percent of each project is funded by NEA grants, Murphy said. The ICA director said that the museum will continue to apply for NEA grants -- they sent in three new ones last month -- and will hope that the NEA will behave as it was originally intended. "We're dealing with a system of government that has the maturity to fund projects that may be critical of their society," Murphy noted. "Stalin funded the arts, but only the arts that expoused Stalin's policies." · Last month, Congress re-authorized the Endowment without the obscenity amendment, but University officials said it is a mixed blessing. As part of a hard-fought compromise, the clause was replaced with a statement requiring works to meet "general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public" to receive grants. Hackney said he felt the new legislation is a success of sorts. "It has come out as well as one could hope," he said. But Murphy noted that while courts around the country have set legal limits on what can be considered obscene, the "new language of decency" has no such guidelines and may prove problematic. Indeed, just last week virtually the entire NEA literary publishing peer review panel resigned over the decency issue. The mass recognition -- nine of the 11 board members quit -- may signal a renewed debate on the issue. "Fortunately we're in a position where we no longer have the obsenity language," Morse said. "But nobody knows exactly how they plan on interpreting this new set of criteria." Murphy said that although the NEA may never return to its former status, he believes that if the Endowment lays low and avoids further controversy it may be able to get its work done. "My feeling would be that the NEA should get on with its job," he said.
(11/07/90 10:00am)
The University Council committee examining the campus ROTC program is soliciting comments from the University as part of an investigation into whether ROTC practices violate the University's non-discrimination policy. In May, Council asked its Steering Committee to begin an investigation, after a former student charged that he was forced out of the program when he publically announced that he was gay. The Reserve Officer Training Corps program has come under fire recently at universities nationwide for barring and discharging gays from service. ROTC's policy is the same as a Pentagon policy which states that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." Council has also called for ROTC to be kicked off campus in June 1993 unless it "adheres to the spirit and the letter" of University policies. Faculty Senate Conduct Committee Chairperson Kenneth George, whose committee is conducting the examination, said this week that the committee is looking for people to testify on their experiences with the University's ROTC program. George said the committee is looking for gays or lesbians who felt harassed in the program as well as people who feel that ROTC has played a positive role on campus. He added that the committee has not met yet and will probably be unable to report to Council as scheduled in December, because it just received its formal charge. George said that the committee will probably be ready by February at the latest. The heads of the campus Naval Science and Army ROTC programs have been asked to meet with the committee, George said. Naval Science Director Lyle Lewis said Sunday that he would participate in the process. Army ROTC Director Jerry Warnement was out of town this week and could not be reached for comment. Because his committee has not met yet, George said he did not know which way the committee was leaning on the issue. But he noted that when Council first discussed ROTC policies in May, members were "horrified" by claims of discrimination and harassment. The issue of ROTC discrimination came to the fore when former College student Peter Laska charged that he was forced out of the Navy ROTC program because he was gay. He subsequently left the University. In an April letter to President Sheldon Hackney, Laska stated that he was intimidated, verbally abused and interrogated when rumors of his homosexuality began to circulate. He said that he eventually was kicked out after writing a letter to his superior officer declaring his homosexuality. In April, Laska said that after he left the University, the Navy demanded he repay $25,000 of "training expenditures" and tuition. He said that the Navy made threatening calls and letters and said they would file suit against his parents if he did not pay. Laska, who moved to San Francisco after leaving the University, could not be reached for comment this week. Other students at several universities have reported similar treatment from their campus ROTC. Thirty-five members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Philadelphia Congressman Tom Foglietta (D-Phila.), sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy in March on behalf of one Harvard and one Massachusetts Institute of Technology student who were reportedly kicked out of the NROTC programs at their schools and ordered to repay over $40,000 each in scholarship grants. "In our view, it is wrong that private sexual orientation remains grounds for dismissal from the U.S. military," the letter states. "We believe that to compel these men to repay this money would not only be fundamentally unfair; it would also reflect an appalling mean-spiritedness which has no place in the Navy." Other colleges across the nation have taken similar steps to the University's. The faculty at the University of Wisconsin at Madison recommended ROTC be kicked off that campus by 1993 unless it accepted gays and lesbians. At Harvard University, where ROTC was dismantled in 1969 as a Vietnam War protest, the administration has stated that it will not allow ROTC to come back on campus unless it accepts homosexuals. Yale University voted not to take ROTC back for the same reason. And the provost of MIT sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney in April urging reconsideration of the policy.
(10/18/90 9:00am)
A report on campus life, commissioned by the president almost two years ago and released Tuesday, urges that the relocation of fraternities be considered in the diversification of Locust Walk. The report calls on the committee working to diversify Locust Walk to recognize "the strong sentiment we heard in the course of our deliberations for the relocation of the fraternities away from the center of campus." President Sheldon Hackney, who formed the Locust Walk committee last semester, said this fall he would not force the 11 Walk fraternities to relocate from their houses. The report had been compiled before Hackney made the announcement. History Professor Drew Faust, who chaired the committee releasing the report, said last night that the Walk committee could offer "carrots" to entice fraternities to leave. She added that her committee felt that a "plural" Walk could not exist if fraternities are allowed to remain where they are. Beyond discussion of Locust Walk, the report was strongly critical of the fraternity system as a whole, questioning its ability to contribute to a plural community. "We found in our discussions . . . that fraternity members are associated with continuing acts of incivility and insensitivity to women and minority groups," the study states. "Fraternities are widely viewed as a significant obstacle to the growth of pluralistic attitudes on campus." "We heard considerable sentiment for abolishing the Greek system entirely," the report continues. "But we recommended instead to focus for the time being on the issue of the fraternity presence on Locust Walk." The recommendations on fraternities is part of a 26-page report which suggests wide ranging structural and administrative changes to make the University a more plural community. Faust said that while the report sets high goals, she feels the University could meet many of the challenges. Among the major themes of the report -- which has been dubbed the Faust Report -- is a distinction between a "diverse" campus and a "plural" campus. The report says a diverse campus is one "in which individuals from various groups are merely present" whereas in a plural community, "individuals and groups maintain their separate identities, yet come together in a community enriched by both its members' differences and their similarities." The Faust Report is divided into four major sections, all focusing on creating pluralism. One section, titled "The Problems and Symbols of Physical Space," examines the way campus residences' locations and structures can affect campus life and includes discussion of Locust Walk. It states that faculty, students and staff see the fraternity-dominated Walk "as a site of racial and sexual exclusivity, and, too often, verbal and physical harassment." The study stops short of making specific suggestions about the Walk, saying those decisions should be left to the committee studying the problem. Among the other recommendations in the section is planning future residential facilities to better accomodate College House programs. Specifically, it mentions the Book Store and the parking lot at 34th and Chestnut streets as potential sites for future College Houses. It also says antiquated learning spaces "with desks fixed to the floor and faculty on raised platforms" creates an atmosphere that students should not look at each other or move and that "faculty should not lower themselves to the student level." Another section, "Our Commitment to Learning," deals with how the academic environment affects campus life. The section's recommendations include: · Having faculty examine the current curriculum to see "if it is consistent with the principles of pluralism," and if not, suggest ways to improve it. · Monitoring the rate at which minority faculty are hired in each department. · Developing a program to fund distinguished visiting faculty with "grounding in other cultures." The third section addresses "How We Interact," studying relationships between student groups, between students and faculty, and interaction of staff members with students and faculty. It also calls for exploration of how to get diverse student groups to interact with each other, and how faculty can better interact with students outside of the classroom. But Faust said that one of the "new and different" areas the report addresses deals with staff interaction with students and faculty. The report states that staff members often feel like "second-class citizens," adding that the most frequent "villains" in staff complaints were tenured faculty. The final section, called "A Community within a Larger Community," deals with the University's relationship with West Philadelphia. It states that the University should continue to support efforts in the community, but says they should be better coordinated. The report, printed in this week's Almanac, is open for comment by the University community and will be discussed at next month's University Council meeting.
(10/03/90 9:00am)
Several faculty and student leaders criticized President Sheldon Hackney yesterday for his proposed revisions to the racial harassment policy, saying that the revamped code could create a threatening campus environment. Most of the students and faculty members interviewed yesterday said that the new, narrowed definition of racial harassment proposed by Hackney gives too much leeway to people whose intent is to insult others rather than to hold open discussion. Hackney this week suggested the changes, which follow a nationwide trend toward removing limits on free speech. Discussion on the issue resurfaced last year after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the harassment policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutionally vague. The University's current racial harassment code is almost identical to the one ruled on by the Michigan court last year. Under the revised policy, an act could only be defined as harassment if it "villifies and intimidates" a person as determined by a three-part test. It must be intended to "demean, insult or stigmatize" a person on the basis of race; be addressed to the person or group whom it demeans; and make use of "fighting words" -- intended to incite violence -- or their non-verbal equivalents. The current policy has much less rigorous standards for determining harassment than the guidelines proposed by Hackney. It prohibits behavior that will cause a threat to a person's academic or work status, interferes with a person's academic or work performance or creates an intimidating or offensive academic, living or work environment. Past Senate Executive Committee Chairperson Robert Davies said yesterday that he thinks the president narrowed the harassment policy too much because "people can still behave in a very uncivil, uncollegial manner and get away with it." "I would like it to be a little more limiting than it is," Molecular Biology Professor Davies said. President Hackney has argued that while the new definition takes a clear stance against racism, open expression must take precedence in setting the guidelines. Hackney will make the final decisions about revisions to the harassment policy. He released the proposed changes in order to field reactions from University members. The revisions will be discussed at next week's meeting of the University Council, the president's advisory body. Davies predicted that University Council as a whole will advocate that the changes be put into effect. Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Chairperson Susan Garfinkel said last night that she is concerned about Hackney's statement that "fighting words" constitute harassment. She said it offers women less protection than it offers men because women are less likely to turn to violence when faced with provocative insults. Garfinkel said she thinks that the current policy is too vague and needs revision, but that the president has gone too far. "I feel strongly that there needs to be a maintenance of freedom of speech," Garfinkel said. "Narrowing the harassment policy is not necessarily the way to do it." She also criticized Hackney for insisting that an act only be considered harassment if it is addressed to the person or group whom it demeans. She said this would mean that some "harassment escapes persecution because it is institutionalized and accepted." But some professors asserted the pre-eminence of free expression yesterday, supporting the revisions to the harassment code. "With these changes we will be maintaining a civilized environment and at the same time protecting free speech," City Planning Professor Anthony Tomazinis said last night. Tomazinis added that he thinks the changes are a "very minute restriction of the harassment code." The president only proposed changes to the University's racial harassment policy, and not to the equally controversial sexual harassment code. Assistant to the President William Epstein said yesterday that the president did not consider changes to the sexual harassment code because University Council debate last March centered around the racial harassment code. He said Council members did not request that the president revamp the sexual harassment code, adding that the president has no plans to alter it. Currently the two policies define harassment differently. The sexual harassment code pertains only to "unwanted sexual attention." Racial harassment is more generally defined, leading some to charge that it curbs free expression. History Professor Alan Kors said last night that while he thinks the racial harassment policy requires amendment, the sexual harassment policy stands on its own. "The sexual harassment policy begins with the behavioral condition of unwanted sexual attention," Kors said. "You want a policy to protect students from the behavior of harassment but don't want a policy that will curb freedom of speech and debate." Kors said that the sexual harassment code is acceptable because it stipulates that harassment is only behavior, not limiting free speech. But United Minorities Council President Nalini Samuels said last night she thinks the sexual harassment policy should also be studied to determine if the wording is overly vague. And GAPSA's Garfinkel said she does not want University members to neglect sexual harassment policies in dealing only with racial conduct codes. "I think that sexual harassment is as big a problem as racial harassment and it shouldn't be downplayed in the face of racial harassment," she said.
(10/02/90 9:00am)
A female University student said yesterday that three University City Associates employees sexually harassed her on Superblock Thursday afternoon and that their supervisor tried to bully her into not pressing charges. College senior Therisa Rogers said three employees sitting on a bench between High Rise North and High Rise East shouted obscene and anti-gay comments at her at about 4 p.m. Thursday. After notifying University police, who took the men into custody, Rogers met with Victim Support Services Director Ruth Wells to find out what action she could take against them. Rogers said a University City Associates supervisor came to the police headquarters, met with the men and then tried to convince her not to press charges. She said the supervisor tried to blame the incident on her, saying she had "partied" with them the night before at a local bar. Rogers said yesterday she had never met the men before. She said he also told her not press charges because one of the men involved in the incident is retarded and harmless. "I think he was trying to get me to drop charges and intimidate me and I told him so," she said, adding she is considering filing charges against him as well. "I felt it was apalling for a University employee to talk to a student that was already scared and blame it on her." University City Associates officials could not be readched for comment. University spokesperson Sylvia Canada said UCA employee William Oliphant went to the station along with the supervisor. Oliphant declined to comment yesterday. Canada said two of the me were released on their own recognizance and one was released in Oliphant's custody. The supervisor does not work directly for the University. The University's real estate department uses University City Associates to manage some of its property. Rogers said she has not filed charges against the men. She said Wells told her the University would charge the men under its harassment policy. But Rogers said if the University does not punish the men, she will file criminal charges. "If the University's going to take serious action then I won't need to," she said. "But if the University is going to sweep this under the rug, I will file criminal charges." (***EDS NOTE : Clarification - the 3 were not criminally charged) University Police identified the three men as Alfred Knight, 62, of the 3900 block of Chestnut Street; William Guy, 31, of 4260 Chestnut Street; and Preston Butler 31, of 123 South 39th Street. Rogers said she was walking between High Rise North and High Rise East when the three men started shouting profanities at her. She said one of them called her a "faggot" and asked her if she had been out partying the night before. She said she did nothing to suggest that she was gay. "I hadn't done anything or said anything that would indicate I was a homosexual," she said. "For whatever reason, they chose to say this. It was a really sexist and homophobic thing." She said a recent report of assault against gay-rights activist Darren Rosenblum made her concerned the men might become violent. "I was frightened," she said. "When I hear somebody say 'Fuck you, faggot,' I think they're going to hurt me," she said.
(10/01/90 9:00am)
While the names of students have changed and some of the scheduled events have shifted focus, the annual Greek Week remains an important way of bringing the Greek system together and introducing it to others. Greek Week organizer David Hecht said last night that this week's events will highlight the positive qualities of the Greek system and will raise awareness of problems in West Philadelphia that fraternities and sororities can help solve. Hecht added that Greek Week also serves to introduce freshmen and others to the fraternity and sorority system at the University. The Week is traditionally held before the Interfraternity Council rush period to increase visibility of the system. And while Greek Week is composed of several events organized by the Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Association, and the Black Intergreek Council, it also serves as a competition between fraternities and sororities. Scoring for the competition is based on the percentage of each chapter attending and participating in Greek Week events. Awards will be presented Saturday night at Barley and Hops for the highest-scoring fraternity and sorority in the weeks' events. Scheduled Greek Week activities will begin at 4 p.m. today as Leona Smith, chairperson of the Committee of Dignity and Human Fairness, is scheduled to speak on College Green along with several fraternity and sorority leaders. Smith is expected to speak on how college students can help fight homelessness in Philadelphia. Tomorrow, Greek members will conduct a walk-a-thon for charity throughout West Philadelphia and the University campus, cleaning up the area as they walk. Pledges collected from the walk-a-thon will be donated to the People's Emergency Center -- a non-profit West Philadelphia organization which provides food and shelter for the homeless. Some other events during the week include a "Meet the Greeks" day, when students and faculty will be able to meet fraternity and sorority members on Locust Walk all day Thursday. Additionally, BIG-C fraternities and sororities are presenting a step show in Irvine Auditorium at 7 p.m. this Friday. The show is free and open to all students and faculty. Greek Week will conclude after the football game on Saturday, with a Greek Olympiad, at which fraternities and sororities compete in athletic events. Members of the Progressive Student Alliance said they will plan several events to give the University community another perspective on the Greek system -- a system they claim provokes racism and sexual harassment. PSA members plan to kick off their own Greek Week activities tomorrow with a noontime protest in front of the Castle at the corner of 36th Street and Locust Walk. Members also plan to pass out fliers protesting President Sheldon Hackney's decision not to remove fraternities in order to diversify Locust Walk. PSA member Scott Kurashige said last night that the group intends to protest other Greek Week events but has not yet made specific plans.
(09/27/90 9:00am)
Campus gay-rights activist Darren Rosenblum was harassed and assaulted last night by a group of area teens, according to Rosenblum. Although other incidents may have been related to his activism, Rosenblum said his assailants were not students and probably did not know who he was. Rosenblum added he was walking toward campus on the 4000 block of Spruce Street about 8:30 p.m. when he saw a group of about seven Asian teens on the street, two of whom were "play-fighting." Rosenblum said he was wearing a sport jacket and a red scarf, adding that the scarf may have attracted the teens' attention. "As I walked past, one of them said 'pato,' which means 'faggot' in Spanish," he said. "I gave them a dirty look and he started following me and imitating my walk, saying, 'What's up, pussy? What's up?" He said the teen pushed him in the shoulder at the corner of 40th and Spruce streets. Rosenblum turned around and confronted him. He said people usually back down once he starts talking to them. He said the teen threatened him and continued following him. As he crossed the street, Rosenblum said, another teen on a bicycle rode up from behind and knocked him over. He said the two teens exchanged a high-five and kept yelling at him. Rosenblum went into Allegro's Pizza and waited for the teens to leave, and then went to Van Pelt House and called University Police. Rosenblum said police officers responded immediately and took him back to the spot where the teens had been standing. A group of Asian teens was still there but Rosenblum could not identify any of them, he said. He said police will likely classify the incident as harassment and not an assault since he has no injury. He said he is happy with the police's response but said that the University should have a separate classification for "hate crimes," like anti-gay, sexual or racial harassment.
(09/27/90 9:00am)
Every year the University spends more than $1 million funding the Career Planning and Placement Service. Administrators justify the expenditure, saying the office is an important resource for students trying to sort through the choices facing them after graduation. But some students have long complained that CPPS does not serve the entire student population. They say it focuses too heavily on careers in business and science and does not give enough help to graduates interested in other fields. Some students also say minorities and international students do not receive enough attention. CPPS director Patricia Rose said the office is well aware of the complaints and is working to expand its offerings and to reach out to a more diverse group of students. Every student deserves first-class career planning advice and should use the office's resources, said Assistant to the Vice Provost for University Life George Koval. Among CPPS best-known services are its resume books, which companies buy, and its "slots" in which students can drop resumes in hopes of being invited to an interview with a recruiter. Michelle Dyer, a 1990 College graduate who found a job at American Management Systems through CPPS, said many of her friends never used CPPS because they were not informed of the office's other programs. "There is a large percentage of the population that they [CPPS advisors] miss somehow," Dyer said. "People think the only kinds of jobs you can get through CPPS are investment banking or consulting." Rose said the office is trying to combat its image of catering only to students interested in the corporate world. "Every year students say to us, 'Why don't you have more ad agencies ]recruiting on campus[, why don't you have more TV stations, why don't you have more social change organizations?'" Rose said. "The answer is those organizations . . . don't recruit on any campuses." But Rose said CPPS has other ways to put students in touch with employers in those types of fields. Each year, CPPS runs a not-for-profit career day when students can meet people working in not-for-profit organizations. It also has a resume book for teaching positions in private schools. And the office is working to expand job listings for fields such as publishing and communications, Rose said. "You have to network yourself into a job [for those fields]," Rose explained. "That's how most people get jobs. Most people don't just drop their resumes in little boxes and get interviews and offers. That's not what job hunting is all about." Rose said CPPS is also trying to help minority and international students who might not know about the service. "We want everyone to feel comfortable coming into this office and to leave feeling like they got what they wanted," Rose said. Rose encouraged students to voice any concerns about CPPS with any of the staffers or directly with her. The CPPS director said students who do not use the service are missing out on valuable advice and may consequently run into difficulties. "We certainly have more experience with the problems that arise than any individual student," Rose said. "Students get themselves into trouble when they're pressured to accept a job before they're ready to do so. Sometimes they meet with sexual harrassment, religious harrassment or racial harassment in the course of a job hunt." Other students who tend not to take advantage of the office, Rose said, are those who are unsure of their post-graduation plans. "By setting foot in this office, you are going down the road to the future and that's scary," Rose said. "You do not have to know what you want to do to come in here. Most of our students have very good prospects, but they need to think about it in a logical way and spend a little time investigating the opportunities the world presents. We can help them do both things, but they have to walk in the door." And Rose stressed that students who know they want to attend graduate and professional schools need to use the service, too. "You need to have a set of reccomendations on file," Rose said. "You can't expect faculty members to write 12 individual letters to 12 individual schools. It's also an insurance policy for students who have any interest in graduate or professional schools." CPPS orientations take place all year round, but anyone can walk in at any time for advice, Rose added. But the CPPS head warned that "if you wake up as a senior and its May 1, you've probably missed a lot of what we do."
(09/20/90 9:00am)
Chemical Engineering professor Daniel Perlmutter has been named University Ombudsman, President Sheldon Hackney announced Monday. Perlmutter replaces Associate Finance Professor Susan Wachter, who served for three years, mediating and resolving grievances of students, staff and faculty. She will now return to full-time teaching and research. Perlmutter served two terms as appellate officer of the student judicial system and has been a member on several committees including committees on sexual and racial harassment. The new ombudsman's term will last two years. Assistant to the President Nicholas Constan said yesterday that Hackney made the appointment after consulting with a variety of staff, faculty, and students who are familiar with the tenured faculty. "The ombudsman has to be someone first and foremost who has the trust of the community . . . and [Perlmutter] certainly does," Constan said. Perlmutter has received Guggenheim and Fulbright awards and was the 1988 winner of the Lindback Award for distinguished teaching. Perlmutter was not available for comment yesterday.
