[This article was modified on Nov. 29, 2007 because of a quote taken out of context. One of Jim Martin’s quotes should now read, “When a person or group is already disenfranchised, there is little to nothing that can be done to make them feel safe.”The story also used the phrase “punitive action.” Martin actually was referring to the faculty’s grievance committee’s cases being dismissed.]
Opinions varied among attendees of Wednesday afternoon’s Chancellor’s Liaison meeting over the University’s treatment of hate crimes.
In the wake of the noose incident of Nov. 8, the meeting addressed the language in the University’s policies and the Code of Conduct concerning hate crimes.
According to Paul Cousins, Office of Student Conduct director, the document intentionally does not address individual issues of legal and criminal misconduct but instead addresses them as a whole.
“The code is a document that is written broadly on purpose,” he said. “We have language that incorporates instances like this.”
Cousins also cited Campus Police’s Annual Security Report, saying there have been no documented incidents of hate crime in the past four years — from the beginning of 2003 to 2006.
“There is nothing in the files that would suggest there has been overt racism,” he said.
Jim Martin, chemistry professor and Faculty Senate chair, said that despite the lack of documented cases, discrimination and disenfranchisment are prevalent. He said none of the faculty hearings on discrimination and harassment have either been dismissed or the faculty members in question left.
“When a person or group is already disenfranchised, there is little to nothing that can be done to make them feel safe,” Martin said.
According to Martin, there is “a lack of recognition that [discrimination] exists,” and therein lies the bigger problem.
Jose Picart, vice chancellor for diversity and African American affairs, agreed.
“You don’t have to look far” to see discrimination, he said, “but education is the key.”
Picart is developing a set of diversity courses as part of the University’s General Education Requirement, which could be implemented as soon as fall 2009.
The diversity course proposal, which the Provost’s Office is reviewing, would include courses in U.S. diversity and global environment within the framework of social inequality, power and oppression, according to Picart.
Picart said the idea for the courses has been well received and would address the issue of hate crimes more effectively than a policy change.
“Let’s face it — how many people read policies?” Picart said. “The education is much more central to the point.”
But Picart said he did initially consider changing the University policy to be a viable solution.
“I also asked the question, ‘What harm is it [to adopt new hate-crime policies]?'” he said.
James Hankins, a senior in political science and social studies education who attended the meeting, asked that question as well.
He said he is concerned with the “underground, deep, embedded hate” in the campus climate and urged action in some form.
“Now is the perfect time, the perfect climate to really do something,” Hankins said.
Cousins discouraged policy change, however, questioning whether hate-crime offenders would even take the time to look at the policies.
“I would urge caution as folks look at modifying language,” he said.
According to Chancellor James Oblinger, the University would further investigate changes to policy over the coming months.
“Policy is policy,” he said. “What I have heard very consistently this afternoon is that there is a commitment to participation.”
Oblinger also emphasized the importance of working toward a more welcoming campus environment.
“I don’t take it lightly. I have never taken it lightly,” Oblinger said. “And I don’t know how much clearer Jim Oblinger or the chancellor can be on this matter.”
