Following a resolution passed by Student Association last week supporting changes to Syracuse University’s harassment policy, some members of the SU community said the proposal is a positive step to make the current policy more specific.

The proposal, written by Zachary Greenberg, a student in the SU College of Law, suggested changes to the university’s definition of harassment in relation to computing and electronics. Greenberg said the wording of SU’s current harassment policy is imposing upon students’ right to free speech. Greenberg’s resolution suggests that the policy’s use of the terms “annoying” and “offensive” is “vague”, “overly broad” and “subjective”.

Greenberg added that the policy may be a university form of a power play with its students, allowing SU to punish students for any form of harassment as defined in the current policy. Greenberg said he is hopeful that the passing of his proposed resolution is the first step toward the policy being amended.

The resolution passed by SA aims to eliminate the words “annoying” and “offensive” and replace them with “more specific language such as threats of violence, obscenity, child pornography and harassing communications as defined by law,” Greenberg said.

David Rubin, professor and dean emeritus at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, said the policy was possibly drafted as a misguided attempt to play the role of the overprotective parent, shielding students from any type of harassment. Rubin said one reason for revision is that students must be exposed to “the real world.”

As a private institution, SU can develop its own student code of conduct that students entering the university must agree to abide by as a part of the registration process. The university therefore requires its students to understand what is expected of them in the terms of conduct, said Azhar Majeed, director of the Individual Rights Education Program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Majeed said SU’s electronic harassment policy is too broad and vague. He said SU’s policy puts students’ First Amendment rights at risk.

“Even though Syracuse is a private institution, it promises its students free speech rights and then those promises are violated by having a policy such as this one,” Majeed said.

He clarified that there are many schools with vaguely-worded policies that suppress freedom of speech, and harassment policies are the codes that most frequently stifle students’ expression.

FIRE rates and ranks universities nationwide based on their acceptance of freedom of speech rights for students. If a university has a particularly constricting policy it will be flagged as a red light policy. Yellow light policies are indicative of a slightly suppressive policy and green light policies are closest to allowing students to express themselves freely. Syracuse has one red light policy, four yellow light policies and one green light policy. In 2011, SU was ranked as the worst school for freedom of speech by the organization. Although it no longer holds this title, SU still has the previously mentioned flagged policies.

SU’s policy has not been vigorously enforced with only a few prominent cases being reported. In 2010, a student in the College of Law was investigated on the premise that a satirical blog based on various characters and events at the law school was considered harassment. In 2012, a student in the School of Education was expelled for a comment made on social media. The resolution indicates that both cases involved actions that are “widely considered to be within the bounds of protected free student expression.”

Published on October 13, 2014 at 12:01 am

Contact Rachel: rcgilber@syr.edu