As the Executive Committee continues to scrutinize the proposed harassment and discrimination policy, faculty members are expressing suspicions about the process in which the policy has been discussed.

The April 21 faculty meeting was declared an executive session, closing the doors to students so that they could more comfortably discuss the policy, said that meeting’s chair Dean of the College Hans Palmer. Several faculty expressed surprise at the decision; some have criticized the way in which the meeting was then run.

In spite of the fact that it was a closed meeting, College lawyer Ron Cohen remained "as a resource for the faculty," according to President Peter Stanley. He assured that if the faculty had desired him to leave, the lawyer would have.

Cohen spoke at length in the meeting, report faculty members.

Six amendments to the proposed policy were debated in the meeting and voted down by the faculty. According to Professor of Psychology Stanely Gaines and other faculty members, Cohen was largely responsible for the outcome of those votes.

"[Cohen] was allowed to respond to every proposed amendment. In fact, he dominated the discussion regarding those amendments. Not surprisingly, every single amendment failed," Gaines stated.

Professor of Politics John Seery sent a letter to the Associate Dean of the College Frances Pohl and President Peter Stanley last week, outlining a number of complaints about Ron Cohen. Seery believes he "gave us extremely poor, perhaps mistaken, perhaps deceptive, counsel" at the April 21 faculty meeting.

Cohen and his associates have assisted the Executive Committee in formulation of the proposed harassment policy, which has been under works for over a year, according to Pohl. Cohen has been involved in drawing up the language of the harassment and discrimination policy and advising the Committee on legal matters.

Seery believes, however, that his advice may not serve faculty members’ needs. "Faculty members need to be apprised that the interest of the College’s lawyer do not coincide with faculty member’s interests, personal, corporate, or pedagogical," said Seery.

Some professors agree with Seery. "The faculty meetings are shows put on by the administration that the faculty merely tolerate," said a faculty member, who asked to remain anonymous. "The agenda is never truly open, and the faculty concerns take a backseat to what the administration and the College lawyer want to put forward.".

Seery believes that the College lawyers’ mission is to limit Pomona’s liability exposure. "The free exercise of free speech rights is not his highest priority, nor his area of professional expertise, " Seery claims.

Cohen has been in trial all week and unavailable for comment. However, according to the biography provided by his company’s website, Cohen of Sidley & Austin, has had "a substantial portion of . . . litigation practice [that] has focused on college and university matters, including…rights of free expression [and] academic freedom."

Despite Cohen’s experience in these matters, Seery reported that after the meeting Cohen told him that specific knowledge of other court cases involving speech codes and harassment policies was a job for "specialists."

Seery believes that the college "should have consulted a First Amendment lawyer," for legal counsel regarding the harassment policy. "While I realize that [Cohen] is not a First Amendment specialist, he should have communicated his shortcomings to the faculty," he wrote in his letter. While he has been in communication with Pohl, Seery has not received a response from her or Stanley addressing his concerns about the College lawyer.

The Executive Committee has revisited portions of the harassment policy’s language since that meeting in response to faculty concerns. Specifically, the definition of harassment is being scrutinized, reports the committee’s chair Professor of Politics Richard Worthington. After changes are made, he reported, the Committee "will send them to the faculty."

"When this is done, this will constitute the Executive Committee’s recommended course of action for consideration by the faculty at the May 12 meeting," said Worthington.