Tuaaday, May 11, 1992 '
Eugana, Oragon
Oregon daily
Volume 83
Number 149
University debates sexual harassment rule
By Gabrial Boehmer
Of th» Emormkl
The wording of a proposed University rule
prohibiting sexual harassment should be changed
before its adoption, according to witnesses who test
ified Monday at a public hearing requested by the
ASUO.
The proposed Oregon Administrative Rule states
that “sexual harassment of students, faculty or staff by
other members of the university community is unac
ceptable and will not be tolerated. "
Sexual harassment is defined as "any sexual
advance, request for sexual favors and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature,” when:
• Employment or academic success depends on
submission to harassment;
• Harassment interfere with a person’s work or
academic performance;
• Harassment creates an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working or academic environment.
University Affirmative Action Director Bean
McFadden would be responsible for processing com
plaints filed under the rule
ASUO officials agreed with the proposal's intent,
but suggested that alleged victims would be more likely
to report harassment to the Student Advocate than the
Affirmative Action office
Students believe that the Student Advocate's office
is more responsive to their problems than the University
administration, Student Advocate John Moore said.
Moore asserts that naming the Student Advocate's
Office in the Oregon Administrative Rule would en
courage more alleged student victims to file sexual
harassment complaints.
"It is no secret that women are generally reluctant
to deal with instances of sexual harassment in a formal
manner,” Moore told Hearings Officer Muriel Jackson,
assistant for administration to University Pres. Paul
Olum. "In effect, to not include the office of Student
Advocacy in the complaint and investigation process of
this administrative rule will have a chilling effect on the
effort to stop sexual harassment on this campus."
The only University student to testify at the hearing,
who asked not to be identified, said she feared that the
complainant's anonymnity would be jeapordized in a
sexual harassment investigation.
“If the confidentiality of the alleged victim is not
protected, they are obviously in a worse position," said
the graduate student. “The (alleged offender's) retalia
tion may become worse through filing a grievance."
She also characterized penalties for violation of the
sexual harassment prohibition as ineffective.
“If the alleged offender remains in a position of
power over the alleged victim, this (rule) isn’t worth
anything," she said.
University faculty, including two representatives of
the American Association of University Professors,
questioned the proposal's language and scope.
"I am certainly sympathetic to the general thrust of
the rule; sexual blackmail is reprehensible behavior and
ought not to be tolerated at the University,” said
Economics Prof. Barry Siegel. "However, in attempting
to deal with this important issue, I believe that the
proposed rule is overly broad.”
Siegel was concerned about the absence of
a definition for "verbal conduct of a sexual na
ture."
"I assume it would include salacious comments.
Would rt also include off-color jokes, so-called 'sexist
language' or references to the opposite sex as
somehow inferior?
“Attempts to proscribe such language and to back
up the proscription with penalties would, in my mind,
amount to violation of academic freedom and First
Amendment free speech rights."
Siegel said vague definitions of sexual harassment
and other terms could easily turn the rule into an
"instrument of blackmail.” For example, he said a
failing student could use the rule to blackmail a profes
sor into a passing grade, or a professor could use the
rule into blackmailing an administrator for a raise.
Siegel suggested that elimination of the term
“verbal conduct of a sexual nature” would lessen the
potential for the rule’s abuse.
Peter Swan, legal assistant to Pres. Olum, said
complaints and written reprimands included in faculty
files would not be disclosed under Oregon Public
Records Law. However, the documents could be sub
poenaed, Swan said.
Affirmative Action Director McFadden said the
anonymity of alleged victims has not been com
promised as the complaint process has been developed
over the last three years. All complainants resolved their
grievances before a public hearing needed to be held,
she said.
Drifting
into spring
The weather is getting better, the wine is chilled,
and the Willamette River is waiting.
Students can spend afternoon hours leisurely
floating on the Mill Race throwing bread to the ducks or
on a more challenging trip down a local river The
canoes can be rented by the hour, by the day or for
overnight trips
The Waterworks Canoe Company is a new, ex
panded version of the old "Canoe Shack,” which
rented canoes to locals since the late 1960s
The EMU-funded Canoe Company has several
kayaks and 20 canoes available for rental With the
additional space, eight more canoes will be added,
program coordinator Mai Fiese says
Rental prices vary from $22.50 for off-Mill Race
rentals to just $2.80 for a restful hour in a canoe on the
Mill Race The rental price includes two paddles and
two lifejackets, with extra paddles and lifejackets
costing 75 cents each.
The Canoe Company is open Monday through
Thursday from 2:30 to sundown, Friday from noon until
sundown, and weekends from 11:00 a m. to sundown.
Committee approves of leaflets in dorms
By Dane Claussen
Of ffi* £m*r«M
The Residence Hall Governance Committee nar
rowly approved a rule that will allow dormitory residents
to distribute non-commercial literature under doors of
other residents in their own dormitories
The issue of literature distribution within the dorms
has surfaced in recent weeks during ASUO elections,
and most recently, when students distributing cam
paign literature for City Council candidate Susan
Sowards were told by a resident assistant that they
couldn't do so
The controversy resulted in the matter being
placed on Monday's agenda and in the RHGC receiving
letters from Alan Contreras and Susan Sowards,
students from the Campus Committee for Susan
Sowards, ASUO Pres Rich Wilkins and ASUO Pres -
elect C.J Balfe
"RAs are telling residents that it is illegal for
residents to distribute campaign literature within their
own dorms,” said Contreras, also ASUO vice president
for program administration.
Sowards said that University policies should not be
hindering efforts to inform and involve students in the
elections process, especially during the students’ first
years of voting eligibility Two-thousand flyers were
printed especially for distribution in the dormitories, she
said.
There are no written rules prohibiting distribution in
the dorms, Contreras said, adding that Section 19 of the
Residence Halls and Food Services Contract only
disallows commercial solicitation.
The section reads, in part,, 'Commercial solicita
tion, advertising, promotion and commercial transac
tions are prohibited in all areas where such activity will,
or is likely to interfere with, impede or make more costly
than formal, functions of that area.'1
However, five or six years ago, wf". t was then
known as the Dormitory Governance Committee, ruled
that individuals or groups wishing to distribute literature
within dormitories should reserve tables in dormitory
lobbies, said Dick Romm, Residence Life Director and a
member of the RHGC In addition, Student Conduct
Code allows the RHGC or individual dormitories to
establish "operating rules," he added.
Contreras said that students are in a hurry in and
out of dining halls, nullifying the effectiveness of tables.
For the most part, RHGC members did not agree on
the new policy and several voiced a variety of ideas
about literature distribution before approving the new
rule 5-4.
The only other literature distribution proposal
voted on, suggested by Carson:Earl representative Joe
Argast, asked that those wanting to distribute literature
in dorms get the approval of the dormitory advisory
board The motion failed by a vote of 4-5, with the same
four representatives that voted against the final motion
voting in favor of Argast s motion.
In other business, the RHGC reviewed a proposed
budget for dormitories and food service for next year
Housing Director Dan Williams said that the
1982-83 rates will be $2,750 for a multiple room in the
University Inn and $2,115 in other dorms, and $3,575 for
a single room in the University Inn and $2,750 in other
dorms