Syracuse University’s anti-harassment policy faced critique from #NotAgainSU protesters, who demanded revisions to the policy as the campus experienced an onslaught of at least 16 hate crimes and bias-related incidents.

Chancellor Kent Syverud agreed to meet nearly all 19 demands of the black student-led movement as written, including the measure that urged university officials to revise or clarify its hate speech policy to clearly denounce the targeted use of hate speech. The protesters occupied the Barnes Center at The Arch for eight days in response to the hate crimes and bias-related incidents, which targeted black, Asian, Jewish and indigenous people.

SU’s policy on harassment resembles those of its 23 peer institutions, but each policy differs based on the institution’s own values.

Here’s a look at how SU defines different forms of harassment compared to its peer institutions:

Defining harassment

SU defines harassment as unwelcome conduct or speech directed at an individual or group of individuals based on a protected category. A protected category is a personal characteristic that is protected by law and includes an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or gender.

The conduct or speech has to be deemed so severe or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance and social living.

Eight of SU’s peer institutions, including Georgetown University and the University of Rochester, have similar definitions of harassment that include the words “severe” and “pervasive.”

The most common definitions among peer institutions refer to harassment as speech or conduct that creates a hostile environment for work, study or social living.

All colleges and universities must comply with federal and state law, including Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. Federally funded colleges and universities must assign a Title IX coordinator to ensure compliance with the law.

“Even though we’re a private institution, we still have an obligation to comply with Title VII, and Title IV and Title IX as well as New York state laws,” said Morgan Levy, Title IX coordinator at the University of Rochester. “It’s the overall regulations that really determine definitions and things like that.”

Certain religiously affiliated institutions, including University of Dayton, Boston College and Marquette University, reference moral obligation to God or their faith in their policies.

Karleigh Merritt-Henry | Digital Design Editor

Anti-harassment policies

SU’s anti-harassment policy deals with issues of non-sexual harassment related to protected categories. Some of SU’s peer institutions did not list all possible protected statuses in their policies.

“The way I would explain it, state and federal law set the floor for compliance,” said Elizabeth Conklin, Title IX coordinator for the University of Connecticut. “I would consider that the floor so the university can go above and beyond what the law requires.”

SU’s anti-harassment policy states it will consider all circumstances surrounding a reported harassment incident, including the frequency, location, severity and context of the incident. The university will also consider the nature of the incident — whether the speech or conduct is physically threatening or humiliating rather than merely offensive — and the intent of the speaker.

Similarly, the University of Dayton’s policy specifies that offensive behavior may not necessarily constitute harassment solely by creating a hostile environment. The university will address the conflict through remedial action or facilitated dialogue in these cases, the policy states.

Multiple institutions cite specific examples of bias-related harassment, including in cartoons and social media posts. These schools include the George Washington University, Northwestern University, New York University, University of Southern California, Boston College, University of Rochester and Brandeis University.

SU, the Pennsylvania State University, Dayton, BC and Northwestern all include a statement in their anti-harassment policies clarifying that the policy does not intend to block freedom of speech.

Sexual harassment

SU has a separate policy for sexual harassment issues titled the Sexual Harassment, Abuse and Assault Prevention Policy.

Sexual harassment, as defined by SU’s policy, is unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that relates to the gender or sexual identity of an individual. The harassment also has a purpose or an effect of creating an intimidating, offensive or hostile work, study or social environment. The policy covers activity both on and off campus.

SU’s University Senate voted in April 2018 to ban all sexual relationships between faculty and students. The university’s faculty manual states that significant institutional power and risk of coercion exists between undergraduate students and faculty.

Many of SU’s peer institutions vary on the topic of faculty-student relationships. Georgetown has a similar policy which prohibits consensual relationships between all students and faculty. UConn has a strict policy against student and faculty relationships, calling them “amorous” relationships rather than consensual.

“We see it as, when there’s a power differential, it is difficult to gage consent,” Conklin said. “We added that portion of our policy in 2013 and we were on the frontlines of that.”

Penn State discourages relationships between students and faculty but does not explicitly prohibit consensual relationships. Dayton discourages relationships between graduate students and faculty and prohibits undergraduate student relationships with faculty.

Published on December 3, 2019 at 10:41 pm

Contact Sarah: scalessa@syr.edu | @sarahalessan