Leges Sine Moribus Vanae
 

The events of last spring have brought into question the University's Racial Harassment Policy .  President Fagin has suggested that  Section II of that policy might be suspended.  While there is uniform agreement that the Racial Harassment Policy has not worked I do not believe that the appropriate solution is suspension of Section II. Critics of Section II have dubbed this section "the speech code" and have made the case that speech codes and the free inquiry that make the university a special place are incompatible.  On the face of it this is an appealing argument but it does not stand up to scrutiny.  Not all speech in the University is the same.  To equate discourse in a class or other academic forum with speech that has no purpose other than to insult or demean an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin trivializes the issue. There can be little doubt that if a member of the university police used a racial epithet in a confrontation with a student that policeman would be disciplined by his superiors.  What sense does it make to sanction such speech on the part of students or faculty?  Section II of the Racial Harassment Policy sets a standard for behavior by members of the University community in support of the goals of the Preamble (Section I).  Racial harassment and the free and open exchange of ideas can not coexist. What has failed is the attempt to legislate behavior.  Leges Sine Moribus Vanae, the words that appear on the Penn shield, are a constant reminder that laws will fail unless they are supported by community mores.  Any attempt to enforce behavior through coercive means is, I am afraid, doomed to failure.  Only through the development of a shared value system can we hope to influence behavior and promote civility on campus.  M. Scott Peck defines civility as "a general awareness by people that personal well-being can not be separated from the well-being of the groups to which we belong...our families, our nation" and our university.  Lack of civility is evidenced by acts such as harassment that disregard the interests of others.  If we are to be successful as a university community we must strengthen and sustain civility on campus.  We can only do that by communicating with each other -- listening as well as speaking.  The Commission on Strengthening the Community has been given the task of finding ways to develop the shared values that are needed to eliminate harassment from our community.  I urge each of you to share your thoughts on this issue with the commission. In the short run, I suggest that we keep section II of the code, with appropriate modification of the introductory paragraph, and eliminate the section that has not worked, Section IV C: Formal Mechanisms for Resolution and Adjudication.  With the suspension of that section we will have to rely on Section IV A: Information, Counseling and Support and Section IV B: Informal Mechanisms for Mediation and Resolution for the resolution of racial harassment complaints. It is my belief that if the parties in the water buffalo case had been brought together with a trained mediator this case would not have developed as it did.  Let's talk more and adjudicate less.  If we can't do this within a university what hope is there for our society.