Poor Policy Publicity
A semester-long attempt to persuade the University to notify students of its anti-harassment policy ends in confusion, unanswered questions and inadequate concessions
by Doug Dukeman

On December 15, all students at UNC received a memorandum from Chancellor James Moeser by e-mail. The e-mail was titled “FORMAL NOTICE: Policies and Procedures Concerning Sexual and Racial Harassment.” The memorandum began by reminding students of the policies on sexual and racial harassment and “emphasiz[ing] strongly the responsibility of each individual to contribute to work and learning environments free of these kinds of discrimination.” While students are also protected from sexual orientation harassment under the Office of the Dean of Students’ anti-harassment policy, which covers “harassment and assault based on sexual orientation” or HABSO, this policy was not included or referenced in the Chancellor’s e-mail.

The Initial Investigation

On January 30, I inquired initially into the reasons for the lack of sexual orientation harassment policy publicity by the Chancellor. His office referred me to the Office of University Counsel located at 300B Bank of America Building on Franklin Street. Apparently, this office is responsible for sending out these e-mails on the Chancellor’s behalf at various times during each academic year from his e-mail alias: james_moeser@unc.edu.
A staff member at the Office of University Counsel initially explained to me the reasons for not advertising the anti-harassment policy on sexual orientation by referring to federal government requirements. She explained that the federal government has no policies on sexual orientation harassment itself. The University is under no federal obligation to advertise its own “internal” policies on sexual orientation harassment. Since it has no need, it should not do so, she said.

Racial and sexual harassment policies, however, are required by federal policy to be advertised widely, and thus the University complies through email notification. To my amazement and disbelief, she noted that if the federal government did not require student notification of these racial and sexual harassment policies, students would not have been informed by e-mail about them either.

As soon as I got over my initial shock, I asked that Counsel consider sending out by e-mail a notification of the HABSO policy (the anti-harassment policy on sexual orientation) immediately to all students in order to rectify the situation. I furthermore stressed that in the future, notification of the HABSO policy should be sent out to students along with the racial and sexual harassment e-mail notices. This staff member offered to take my concerns to the University Counsel and get in touch with me as soon as they had a response.

The University’s Response

After a week’s worth of deliberation, the staff member contacted me and asked me to come to the Office of University Counsel so she could pass on the response of the Counsel concerning my requests. When I arrived at the office, she greeted me and proceeded to cite several reasons why a sexual orientation harassment notice would not be sent out to students. It would also not be sent in the future alongside racial and sexual harassment policies.

The reasons for this decision ranged from absurd to unreasonable. One particularly absurd reason Counsel refused to send out this notice was that it claimed that students do not read their e-mail. Attempting to publicize this particular University policy in this manner, it was argued, would only be met by student apathy and a general lack of interest in the matter.

Even if students eventually do check their e-mail, University Counsel suggested that there were logistical problems with e-mailing students notice of the University anti-harassment policy on sexual orientation. It argued that there are far too many policies about which to notify students. A “slippery slope” was being risked here by notifying students of the HABSO policy. If this particular anti-harassment policy is sent to students by e-mail, it was argued, there will be little keeping the University from having to notify students of all policies by e-mail.

The final reason Counsel gave just seemed to intimate that it did not fully grasp the situation. It suggested that it was already sufficiently notifying students about the sexual orientation harassment policy. This sufficient notification was supposedly accomplished by the Chancellor’s initial memo from September 6, 2001 sent to Deans, Directors and Department Chairs concerning “Policy Statements on Non-Discrimination.”

Why It Doesn’t Add Up

Counsel’s concerns about a lack of e-mail use by students and a “slippery slope” of policy publicity are so unfounded that it seems almost ridiculous to respond to them. Nevertheless, an analysis of the above response by University Counsel is necessary. Suffice it to say, the University e-mail system is widely used by thousands of students everyday (compulsively by many). Its widespread daily use is easily demonstrated by an increasing need for additional campus Internet and e-mail stations. E-mailing notice of three anti-harassment policies (sexual orientation, sexual and racial) in one e-mail rather than simply notice of two anti-harassment policies (sexual and racial), as is currently done, is not the first step down a slippery slope. Even if they choose to send out notice of the HABSO policy, the University is still perfectly justified in not advertising to students dated and non-essential policies like those concerning, for instance, “Faculty and Staff Travel to SARS Areas.”

The University Counsel’s response is clearly a refusal to adequately address the seriousness of the University’s poor policy publicity. Reference to the September 6 memorandum from Chancellor Moeser as a tool of Counsel’s notification to students about anti-harassment policies does not make sense. This memo did not even concern the anti-harassment policy on sexual orientation. This memo on the whole concerned itself solely with “Policy Statement on Non-Discrimination” – as its title reflects. The policy on nondiscrimination is different from the HABSO policy. In addition, this memo was not sent to students, but only to “Deans, Directors and Department Chairs” – and sent almost three years ago! There seems then to be no good reason for the University to continue to avoid publication of its own sexual orientation harassment policy. What is behind this lack of adequate policy publicity?

Existing University Publicity Efforts

A quick look at current University publicity of the anti-harassment and non-discrimination policies reveals general administrative apathy and irrational resistance to change. From the UNC homepage, any user can “easily” find the University’s policies on harassment and discrimination by clicking on the link for “Administration,” then “UNC-CH Policies,” then “Nondiscrimination.” Once there, they are confronted with the following links: AIDS: University Memo on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, Nondiscrimination: Policy Statements on Nondiscrimination, Protection for Reporting Improper Government Activities, Racial Harassment Policy and Procedures and Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures.

The webpage still refers to the AIDS memo, but oddly enough it contains no link to it. The rest of the links are all to existing documents. The first concerns non-discrimination policies, the second concerns reporting government improprieties, and the third and fourth concern racial and sexual harassment policies.

First, why are these harassment notices found under “Nondiscrimination”? Discrimination and harassment policies are clearly different, and yet they are all lumped into this same general category. The University Counsel points to this webpage when it says it is adequately advertising the sexual orientation harassment policy. A link entitled “Nondiscrimination: Policy Statements on Nondiscrimination” (www.unc.edu/campus/policies/nondiscrim.html) to the Chancellor’s memorandum on September 6 is here. But if students would come here to find information on the sexual orientation harassment policy then why not simply place a link here to this policy alongside the racial and sexual harassment “policies and procedures”? The Chancellor’s memo here does not even concern harassment.

One reason might be the general lack of understanding in the University community about these policies. The University Counsel advertises longstanding policies on sexual and racial harassment but seems to annually forget to advertise similar policies on sexual orientation harassment. Few people know the difference between the non-discrimination policies and the anti-harassment policies. Even Chancellor Moeser seems to confuse the two in his memo when he says, “Any employee of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having a complaint of discrimination should notify the immediate supervisor (excluding the alleged harasser)” (The emphasis is mine). Is he talking about discrimination or harassment? Are those who discriminate also harassing and vice versa?

Another reason might be that while the Office of the Dean of Students (in conjunction with several other University offices) did develop an anti-harassment policy, that policy has not been widely advertised or adopted by the University community as a whole. It seems that this so-called “Resource and Action Plan for Sexual Orientation” is only for students who are experiencing “harassment or assault based on sexual orientation.” But the problems do not end here. How does a student know if s/he has experienced HABSO? While the plan discusses HABSO at length, it never defines what HABSO is or might be. Similar policies about sexual and racial harassment carefully define what constitutes the practice. No such clear definition exists in the current HABSO policy.

Are Only Students Protected from Harassment?

It seems then that while the Office of the Dean of Students has developed its own plan for dealing with harassment and assault of students based on sexual orientation, the University as a whole has no similar plan of action in regards to faculty, administrators or staff. There is no recourse for the professor who told me he heard the words “faggot” ring across the quad at his passing on two occasions when he began teaching at UNC-CH just a few years ago. There is no system in place for administrators who are treated similarly or staff members who are specifically harassed by co-workers because they are or are thought to be gay, lesbian or bisexual.

As I reviewed UNC policy, I came across this statement about harassment: “The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recognizes the rights of all members of the University community to learn and work in an environment free from unlawful harassment and/or retaliation based upon age, sex, color, national origin, religion, creed, or handicapping condition.” However, if a faculty member, administrator or staff member at the University is harassed because of their sexual orientation, there seems to be no “legal” recourse for them. Their harassment is lawful.

Recent Developments

Recently, I heard good news that someone in the University administration (the details are vague so far) has decided to send out notice of the full nondiscrimination policy to students along with the racial and sexual harassment policies. While this is not sending out the HABSO policy and thus not exactly what I was attempting to accomplish, it is definitely a step in the right direction. Stephanie Chang of the LGBTQ Office is also spearheading efforts to update the HABSO policy this summer by adding a clear definition of what exactly constitutes “harassment and assault based on sexual orientation”. While the LGBTQ Office (as a division of Student Affairs) does not seem to be the most appropriate office to lead any efforts to urge adoption of the policy by the entire University community and its extension to faculty, administrators and staff, they nevertheless are tirelessly working to make progress on this issue. I hope that each member of the University community will help them make progress in whatever way s/he can.
All of these recent developments bring me back to the fundamental goal in this area. The mission of the University is to serve all the people of the State. The University exists “to improve the condition of human life through service and publication; and to enrich our culture.” Is the apparent lack of understanding by the Office of the University Counsel enriching the lives of UNC students, faculty, administrators and staff when it fails to enforce and advertise the University’s HABSO policy? It is no doubt a difficult step to publicize such controversial policies while being held hostage fiscally by a conservative legislature. But what message does the University send to gay, lesbian, bisexual and queer students, faculty, administrators and staff when it does not even have the courage to send out a simple e-mail?

Co-Editor in Chief and senior Douglas Dukeman, a religious studies and philosophy double major from Norton, Ohio, can be contacted at lambda@unc.edu.