|
Minutes of the Emory University Senate
Jeffrey Bartos Barbara Greene-Plauth Jack Millgard
Mike Berry Pamela Hall Janet Moore
Laura Brown Gary Hauk Judy R. Moore
Penny Castellano Pat Hudgins Ulric Neisser
Paula Cattanach Eddie Irions Marie Nitschke
Louise Cook Jim Johnson Alisa Porter
Andrew Cousins Myron Kaufman Robert C. Schlant
Joseph Crooks Harvey Klehr David Simanoff
William Dillingham Frank Lechner Claude Sitton
Donald Donham Clark Lemons Luther Smith
Michele Duncan Richard Letz Maggie Stephens
Robert Ethridge Mary Anne Lindskog Dan Treadaway
Joan Gotwals Michael McQuaide
Frank Lechner, President of the Senate, called the meeting to order. The minutes of the February meeting were approved. The six nominees for honorary degrees, submitted to the Senate at its last meeting, were voted on by written ballot and approved unanimously. The names will now be sent forward to the Board of Trustees for final approval. Dr. Lechner expressed his appreciation to Michael McQuaide, Chair of the Honorary Degrees Committee, for his work. Election of the President-Elect of the Senate, tentatively scheduled for the March meeting, was postponed until April. Dr. Lechner mentioned his concern about getting nominees to run for the position, and spoke about the need for strong leadership on the Senate. Marie Nitschke was elected to continue as Senate Secretary. As a part of the Senate's on-going discussions about Emory's intellectual environment, Joan Gotwals, Director of the University Libraries, and Jim Johnson, Director of the Information Technology Division, spoke to the Senate about new technology at Emory and its impact on the curriculum and research here. Mr. Johnson noted that the tremendous growth in the use of the internet, advances made in digitizing resources, and new multi-media technologies are areas of special interest now. These trends raise many new ethical and behavioral questions, issues of access, and funding needs that the University must continue to monitor. Here at Emory, the Information Technology Division and the University Library have been working closely together on these issues.
Senate member Myron Kaufman asked if a University policy on information access was needed. Dr. Gotwals said that a policy like that could be useful to assure that all members of the Emory community have the fullest access to the information resources that they need. Dr. Lechner asked about plans for the new library building. Dr. Gotwals reported that the new building between the Woodruff and Candler Libraries is funded, as well as the renovations in Woodruff. Renovations in Candler are not yet funded. The Library Policy Committee and the Campus Planning Committee have both been involved in the planning process for the new building. The next item on the agenda, discussion of the University's policy statement on discriminatory harassment, was continued from the previous meeting. A number of guests, representing a variety of campus viewpoints, were present for the discussion. Dr. Lechner mentioned that two invited guests, History Professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Kimberly Ellis, President of the Black Student Alliance, sent their regrets. (Another invited guest, Sylvester Hopewell, Chair of the President's Commission on the Status of Minorities, also could not come.) Jeffrey Bartos, sponsor of the Student Government Association resolution calling for a repeal of the policy, was called upon first to explain why he felt that the resolution was necessary. Mr. Bartos said that codes similar to Emory's had been creating turmoil across the country, and that he was concerned about what might happen at Emory when new leadership is appointed to replace President Laney. David Simanoff, out-going editor of the Wheel, mentioned a well-publicized incident at the University of Pennsylvania to illustrate how policies could be misused and argued that the student community should be responsible for censoring itself. Dr. Lechner then recognized some faculty and administrators who had participated in a recent Alumni Assembly discussion on this issue. Political Science Professor Harvey Klehr noted that the policy gave outside speakers more freedom of speech on the campus than Emory faculty and students, and expressed concern that, without a list of offending phrases, individuals might offend without realizing it. Robert Ethridge, Director of Equal Opportunity Programs, mentioned that there has never really been complete freedom of speech because of libel laws, restrictions during war times, and similar legal restraints. The Department of Education's Civil Rights Office restricts racial harassment, and Emory's policy follows the guidelines from that office. Abuses have come at other schools, not from a policy which follows the guidelines, but from the way that the policies have been enforced. University General Counsel Joseph Crooks raised several questions about policies such as Emory's including who decides the standards, who enforces the policy, how can speech be restricted while still maintaining openness, does the policy make the academy more open to new groups, would the absence of the policy minimize the level of civility on campus. Claude Sitton, Emory alumnus and adjunct professor in the History Department, argued that the policy teaches students that censorship is okay and that placing limits on what one can say leads to limits on what will be learned. He mentioned that the codes have failed court tests. Referring to Justice Hugo Black, he argued that freedom of speech is indivisible. In response, Mr. Crooks said that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines on sexual harassment, which Emory's policy follows, have been in place for fifteen years and have been upheld in the courts. Some codes have been struck down in the courts, but these are ones that have criminalized hate speech or used language that did not closely follow the Federal guidelines. The EEOC is now considering proposals which will expand the sexual harassment guidelines. In response to questions from Mr. Bartos about the relevance of the First Amendment at Emory, Mr. Crooks said that the courts have rejected First Amendment arguments against these policies in sexual harassment cases in the past, and he believed that the Supreme Court would uphold these policies in areas beyond those pertaining to sexual harassment. In response to a question from Mr. Sitton, he said that Emory's policy follows Federal regulations, and the University did not plan a court challenge based on First Amendment rights. In response to comments by Dr. Klehr and Dr. Dillingham, he said that the policy does not apply only to speech against certain groups, but that the wording protects everybody. Laura Brown, President of the Emory Lesbian and Gay Organization, pointed out that the policy specifically protects academic freedom in the classroom, but gives students a means of fighting back when harassed in other situations. She said that students have a right to study in an environment free from harassment. Several members and guests present commented about who is actually protected by the policy. Pat Hudgins, Chair of the President's Commission on the Status of Women, agreed with Mr. Crooks that the policy protects all, but noted that it is the ones who are under-represented in the University who speak for the policy and believe that it is needed. Andrew Cousins, Graduate School representative on the Senate, said that the SGA resolution asking for repeal of Emory's policy did not represent the sentiment of the majority of the students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Mr. Bartos agreed, noting that the graduate student SGA representatives all voted to uphold the policy. However, representatives from the College and from all of the professional schools supported repeal of the policy. Dr. Kaufman wondered if the policy might make the community too sensitive, stopping behavior that should not be stopped because people are unsure of where the line is drawn. He also questioned whether people shouldn't be able to take some offensive and demeaning behavior. Dr. Hudgins responded that restrictions on offensive speech are good if they make people wonder "do I want to say this?" College representative Alisa Porter and Employee Council representative Paula Cattanuch mentioned that the multiple levels of status in the University call for more protection than might be necessary in peer relationships. Dr. Klehr restated his concern that the notion of offense in the policy is vague, since no one knows how it will be interpreted or applied. Anthropology Professor Donald Donham replied that offense is not the crucial issue of the policy, and that just striking it would not affect the core of the policy. Mr. Sitton emphasized the role of the First Amendment in enabling the civil rights and women's movement. Mr. Bartos referred to the case of theologian Thomas Altizer, who once claimed at Emory that "God is dead," to show how a university can respond to offensive speech with more speech instead of administrative sanctions. As the discussion neared a close, Senate member Ulric Neisser observed that the comments had focused on what might happen in the most extreme cases. With a good administration, he did not think there was much danger of either bigotry or free speech infringements breaking out all over the campus. Since there was no danger now, and all was working well, he questioned if the code should be repealed. Dr. Lechner suggested that the core of disagreement was not over the entire policy, but rather just a few words of the policy. He wondered if the Senate might not want to consider revising just those words. Dr. Ethridge cautioned about the necessity of keeping certain phrases taken from the Federal guidelines. Mr. Crooks, who had mentioned earlier that the Federal guidelines are in the process of being revised, said that he would prefer that any change in our policy await the final EEOC guidelines. Dr. Donham urged the Senate not to act hastily if it changes the policy for fear that this might polarize the University. The
meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. |