Early April’s display of student and administrative optimism for the proposed harassment and discrimination policy has been recently overshadowed by several faculty complaints about both the content and handling of the proposed new statement and policy on harassment and discrimination.

Specific issues regarding the language of the proposed policy were raised at Friday’s rare executive session faculty meeting. The policy remains a mere proposal, and underwent further scrutiny by the Executive Committee, an elected committee of faculty members, at their Wednesday meeting. The Committee has been the primary body involved in the production of the policy, working with Associate Dean of the College Frances Pohl.

Some faculty members expressed concern for what they describe as vagueness in the definition of harassment, and possible of violation of free speech rights. "Given that we’re all here to promote the free exchange of ideas, we need to protect that exchange a bit more explicitly," said Professor of Politics John Seery, one of Friday’s most vocal critics of the proposed policy’s language, which he deems too vague in its definition of harassment. He later sent a letter to Dean Pohl and President Peter Stanley outlining his concerns.

As the proposed policy currently stands, it is unclear to some faculty what constitues forms of harassment and differentiates it from other forms of speech or communication. An explanatory list of harassing acts in the policy defines harassing conduct as taking "many forms and includes, but is not limited to, the following: gestures, assault, impeding or blocking another’s movement, slurs, jokes, statements, photographs, drawings, or cartoons based upon any of these categories prohibited by state or federal law as mentioned above."

"My fear now is that this policy would not be used against racists or homophobes, but rather against those who accuse others of racism or homophobia," said a faculty member who echoed Seery’s concern about the language’s vagueness.

"Given the critical nature of many of our classes, many of us need the freedom to say things that other people might not want to hear. I just want us to be more clear about what kinds of speech are and are not protected [in this policy]," said the professor, who wishes to remain anonymous.

Other words in the policy constitute sufficient clarification to the satisfaction of the Executive Committee. It says that "the behavior must be ‘pervasive’ and ‘severe,’ and the complainant must show that this behavior has adverse consequences," said the chair of the Executive Committee, Professor of Politics Richard Worthington. "Nonetheless, I take my colleagues’ concerns seriously, so I hope we can come up with language that addresses these concerns."

Additional faculty issues with both policies’ language involve ambiguity in the College’s stance on the importance of professors’ free speech rights. The second paragraph of the first statement, for instance, states that "respect for this right [to hold and defend opinions] requires that we tolerate the expression of objectionable ideas." Tolerance, to Seery, "is a thin reading of the First Amendment and our mission statement. We don’t just tolerate objectionable ideas, we welcome them. . . ‘Tolerate’ should be changed to ‘welcome, encourage, promote.’"

The College has paid close attention to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and its regulations on speech and harassment in the workplace, along with other law in civil rights area, though Pohl claims they have only served as guidelines for formulating this policy.

Discussion during the faculty meeting, however, was largely concerned with EEOC. "All we talked about the first hour and half was how to conform to EEOC regulations," said Seery.

"Just to be in compliance with the EEOC I don’t think should be the driving force for our deliberation. I think this is way too important," said Professor of Politics Lorn Foster who was also at the meeting, and called for a quorum after two hours.

Pohl, however, holds this policy adequately protects professors’ First Amendment rights, and that it, "along with other College policies, expressly recognize[s] the importance of maintaining free speech." She has been heavily involved in the drafting of the policy, having worked on it since last semester.

President Stanley’s wording of his beliefs about the collegial purpose does not go so far as Seery’s. "The principle obligation of the College is to preserve academic freedom and to ensure free speech, and I don’t think that the harassment policy ought ever to be framed in a way that intrudes on that, except insofar if the law requires it," he said.

The First Amendment, however, states that "Congress shall make no law that abdridges the freedom of speech." According to Seery it would surpass any regulations passed by the EEOC, although others have asserted that exceptions can be made for private institutions.

Seery sees this as a dangerous position for the College to take because "we’d soften our speech in order to conform with the prevailing law."

Professor of English Paul Mann believes that the policy will inevitably have a chilling effect on speech, but is optimistic about its potential. "It will be worked through in a historical and institutional process, and it may have a chilling effect now on faculty-student relations, but the kinks in the process will be eventually worked out."

Mann, who is on next year’s Grievance Committee which will be dealing with the harassment policy, feels that harassment policies in general having an effect on speech is "part of a national problem, not a college problem."

A current bill introducted in Congress clarifies the position of private institutions, according to Seery, "should they think otherwise that no condition of employment could abridge First Amendment priviledges." Such a bill could potentially curtail the national trend towards chilling speech that Mann sees, spawned out of difficulties with formulating such policies.

The question now posed to the faculty is whether they perceive their legal rights as employees of a corporation or as citizens.

"Had the policy gone through the way it was worded, they would’ve had differential speaking priviledges vis-a-vis other institutions and our students. . . Students would have more speech privileges than their professors," Seery said. "We would’ve become overnight a national laughingstock."

These concerns have halted the proceedings for what many faculty members would like to see resolved this year. The faculty’s last meeting is next Friday, May 5, and according to Executive Committee member Professor of Economics Eleanor Brown, ensuring that the seniors graduate will be their top priority. The faculty has to pass a list of graduating seniors every year.

"We’re not going to hold them hostage," she joked.