1) Is the Discriminatory Harassment Policy a "speech code"?
No. The Discriminatory Harassment Policy governs behavior and speech only as it is related to patterns of harassing behavior and "hostile environment." The word "pattern" is a key word. A hostile environment is not created by an isolated nasty exchange between people, but by recurring patterns of intimidation through speech and/or behavior, especially when one person has the power to threaten the job security of another person.
2) Does the Discrimina-tory Harassment Policy restrict the freedom to discuss topics or perspectives in the classroom which may be offensive to some people?
No. The policy explicitly upholds the ideal of free discussion of ideas. For example, this policy itself, as controversial as it is, has been widely discussed on campus.
3) Why have such policies been struck down at other schools, such as the University of Michigan?
In the case of the University of Michigan, the policy was being enforced in such a way as to restrict the expression of ideas in the classroom. Emory's Discriminatory Harassment Policy is specifically designed to preclude such enforcement. No one, including opponents of the policy, has charged that Emory's policy is being enforced as it was at the University of Michigan.
4) Does this policy cover behavior and speech beyond the classroom?
Yes. But, again, the governing standard of conduct is whether a pattern of intimidation is occurring, not whether an isolated, indiscreet or insensitive comment was made.
5) Don't I have to be careful about what I say and where I say it?
No and yes. No: If your speech and behavior does not create a pattern of intimidating others, you can say what you want, even when you intend to express anger, frustration, passion, misunderstanding or confusion. You may "talk around" an issue, as in a filibuster. Yes: If the goal of a university is to clarify ideas, to create precision in what we mean in order to think as clearly as possible, then we will want to take care in our speech whether this policy exists or not.
6) Can the entire career of a well-intended student, staff member or faculty person be smeared by false accusations?
Probably not. The reason that false accusations are an insignificant risk is that the Equal Opportunity Programs (EOP) office actively attempts to diffuse conflicts where misunderstandings occur. Most complaints are resolved through conversation in which the misunderstanding is clarified. In this regard Emory University can be considered a model for other institutions to imitate.
7) Does this policy solve or create problems?
This policy has governed many cases, some of which have been resolved through informal mediation, others of which have been identified as cases of genuine harassment. While some people disagree with the policy "in principle" for fear that it could be used to squelch free speech, Emory University has not had a case in which the complainant charged that his or her freedom of speech was violated; rather, the situation remains hypothetical. If Emory University began to get cases in which it became evident that the free discussion of controversial ideas was being inhibited, this policy would require the EOP office to be just as responsible for educating the person involved about the latitude of free speech as it has been in existing cases for educating persons about ways in which their speech and behavior can be construed as harassment.
Pamela D. Couture is assistant professor of pastoral care in the School of Theology.