Following the Reed faculty’s vote to reject the new draft of the Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct (DHSM) policy, the student Senate lead a lengthy discussion concerning the DHSM during their public meeting on April 16.
As explained by Student Body President Ashlin Hatch, the faculty’s decision was the result of two votes. One vote was called to reject the policy, and, following the rejection of the policy, another vote was called to defer the discussion until their next meeting in May.
Senator and DHSM Liaison Kate Hilts expressed frustration at the length of the drafting process and the willingness of senate to make compromises with the faculty, which she felt was ultimately not reciprocated. “I feel like we really met the faculty in the middle… we made so many compromises… and that is frustrating to not have that acknowledged,” Hilts stated. Senator Grace Haley cited the draft’s academic freedom clause as a “good representation of the compromise that senate and CAC have made”.
Assistant Treasurer Rachel Kennelly voiced support for the current draft of the policy. “The DHSM is something worth caring about because it affects every person on this campus,” Kennelly said. “[The new policy] upholds the ideals that we want to see on this campus.” Senator Nick Fiore was in agreement with this sentiment. “It’s important that when we, as an institution, say we don’t tolerate behavior, we act on that,” Fiore stated.
Former Student Body President Danielle Juncal announced to the Senate her creation of a petition to support the new draft of the DHSM. Juncal also voiced concern about flaws in the current policy. “If someone is being stalked on this campus right now, they will not be protected under the current DHSM, and I think that is heinous,” Juncal stated.
Concerns were raised by J-Board member Elaine Andersen about the role of policy, especially with regard to defining aspects of the Honor Principle. “[Policy] reduces the amount of debate that we have about honor. The Honor Principle is exciting because it needs to be discussed,” Andersen said.
Assistant Dean of Sexual Assault and Prevention and Response Rowan Frost responded by articulating that the role of the policy is to be compliant with federal law and articulate specifically what constitutes a violation. “To be able to define those things is incredibly helpful when you are trying to tell people what not to do,” Frost explained. “[Federal regulations] are not going to define stalking or dating violence for us… we have to come up with it for ourselves. We can take the minimally compliant route or we can say what we think dating violence is.”
Student Dwayne Okpaise gave the opinion that, “the Honor Principle has subjectivity that sexual misconduct shouldn’t have.” Student and senatorial candidate Alex Boyd echoed this sentiment. “I don’t think we should discuss further whether people should be protected, it’s just yes. [Preventing] stalking and relationship violence is not a discussion, it’s a given,” Boyd stated.
Dean of Students Mike Brody spoke to the ongoing tension between the student Senate and the faculty. “We are stuck in a system that is inherently frustrating because deferral will keep happening,” Brody said. Brody also suggested that a minimally compliant policy could be a possible solution. “There is no perfect policy… reasonable people will continue to disagree,” Brody stated.
Professor of Political Science and Humanities Peter Steinberger raised some of the faculty’s concerns about the DHSM draft. “I am having in difficulty adjusting to a number of things here, which are out of whack with what we understood campus governance could be. There is a sense that the draft goes beyond what’s required for legal compliance where students are in control of an institution of private lives, which I am not used to… I read this as a pretty much a retreat from the idea of the campus being controlled by the honor principle… Finally, there remain concerns about academic freedom,” Steinberger said. “I am not convinced that we can’t come to a good conclusion… These are concerns that apply to students as well as faculty.”
Senator Eileen Vinton responded to Steinberger’s comments regarding students exceeding their bounds in terms of campus governance. “I will never agree with a level of un-regulation that allows discriminatory harassment and sexual misconduct to go unpunished,” Vinton said. Kennelly agreed, adding, “Why does it seem crazy that we want to protect ourselves and our friends from this?”
Student Jake Gonnella spoke to concerns about academic freedom, explaining that, “arguing for teaching your class the way you’ve always been teaching it in the face of sexual harassment doesn’t make sense to me.”
Fiore, in response to Steinberger’s comments about the declining role of the Honor Principle, exclaimed that, “Old Reed is dead. We are creating a new Reed for ourselves and for future students. Reed means empathy and compassion and nuanced ways in how community relates to each other to have a better understanding of each other.”
Senator Helen Spencer-Wallace agreed with Fiore regarding the rejection of old values. “I as a woman, need to know that something I consider sexual harassment, will be considered as fairly as possible, such that my access to the education will not be compromised,” Spencer-Wallace said. “Just as I want to not compromise access for everyone. People of protected classes were prohibited from accessing their education a while ago at this college.”
Senator Christina Johnson brought up that there was strong support from faculty in favor of the new DHSM earlier in the semester, but that at the most recent faculty meeting very few were vocal, despite a significant minority of votes in favor of passing the new draft. “I worry that faculty members have been chilled into not showing their support,” Johnson said.
Associate Professor of History and Humanities Ben Lazier voiced his explanation for voting against the DHSM draft. Lazier explained that some of what the faculty expressed is not reflected in the document. Lazier also stated that enacting legislation and establishing community norms can occur separately. “By legislating norms, you are making illegal deviations from the norm and I don’t think that there is much attention to ways in which those deviations are perfectly fine,” Lazier said. Lazier also brought up that certain provisions of the DHSM, including the provision regarding consent, apply to faculty and staff as well as students. “You might consider how faculty might feel when students are telling them, here is how you are allowed to have sex or not allowed to have sex,” Lazier said. Lazier voiced support for the sentiments behind the revised DHSM, stating, “We don’t want you to feel unsafe. We don’t want you to be hurt.” However, Lazier affirmed that if the document was sent back to the faculty in its current state, he would vote against it again.
Student and senatorial candidate Thomas Hoang asked if there was a way to pass portions of the DHSM that protect students, while omitting parts of the DHSM that included the faculty. Senator Galen Harrison explained that at this point in the process, the faculty cannot make further amendments to the policy.
The faculty will revisit the student draft of the DHSM at their meeting in May. If the faculty do not pass the new draft, the decision will go to President John Kroger to use an emergency action power to approve a version of the DHSM.