On Thursday February 26, the faculty called an impromptu meeting to discuss further edits to the draft of the Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Policy (DHSM) that was scheduled to be voted on this past Monday. Due to their call for additional extensive edits, they did not vote on the DHSM. It has been pushed to the April meeting, which is the last possible meeting during which it can be approved before the federal deadline for mandatory changes arrives in the summer.
Approximately twenty faculty members were present at this past Thursday’s impromptu meeting. Most of the Student Senate was also in attendance, arriving late after cutting their own public meeting short in order to attend. Many of the edits discussed by faculty concerned old language that had been previously presented. Among the most-discussed edits was the request to delete the term “offensive” in the legal definition of a hostile work environment, a definition which is unchanged from the version of the DHSM passed last year. It currently reads as follows:
“Hostile environment: Harassment creates a hostile environment if it is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent that it either (1) denies, interferes with, or limits a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from the College’s programs or activities; or (2) creates a learning, working, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or offensive.”
The request to delete the term “offensive” originated with Associate Professor of History and Humanities Ben Lazier, who expressed a desire to protect offensive speech and material. Professor of Physics and Dean for Institutional Diversity Mary James attempted to clarify that to make an entire environment offensive, multiple instances of offensive conduct would likely have to occur. Several other faculty members, primarily men, spoke up in favor of deleting the term “offensive.”
President John Kroger intervened in the discussion multiple times to clarify that the definition of a hostile environment is a legal definition, and the text above originates verbatim in Title IX, meaning it cannot be changed. Kroger also emphasized the “$300 an hour” expense of consulting council, who had already deemed the current working draft “excellent.” When Lazier pressed to give a new definition to Reed’s lawyers for consideration, Kroger replied, “If you guys want to spend a thousand dollars showing the lawyers language to which the answer is ‘no’, I’d be happy to do that.”
Exceptions for academic content were also discussed: passages protecting academic freedom already exist in three places in the document, but a few faculty members expressed a wish to expand and/or strengthen them. Professor of English and Humanities Gail Sherman spoke against such an expansion, citing inappropriate behavior on the part of faculty done “in the name of academic freedom,” which she has witnessed “in [her] own experience,” and does not wish to exempt or excuse.
Professor of Philosophy Mark Hinchliff expressed disappointment with the expectation of having to “just vote up or down” on Monday, saying, “it feels like we’re in a Russian Commie hall!” Hinchliff also commented that the Student Senate has more leniency when it comes to deliberation and edits. These comments were countered by Vice President and Dean of Student Services Mike Brody, who spoke up in defense of the Student Senate, citing the Community Constitution and its outlines for legislative procedure. Hinchliff later clarified that he did not mean to critique the Student Senate itself.
Other topics of discussion included the role of nudity, on campus and in the document. The meeting lasted an hour and a half, during which the faculty got through only four pages of the document.
Following the close of the meeting, the Community Affairs Committee decided not to bring the DHSM to a vote during Monday’s meeting, citing “the will of the faculty.” Pending further edits, it is expected to be voted on during the April faculty meeting.