www.uncedu/glbtsa/lambda
UHC HOME BIRECTORIES S
ffes
»s-y'ss
/«fc
here;
jjsms / Human Rg$oufceg / SPA / Emcio
minotion Policies / Policy Statonien
'State
ttient on Sexual Oriental
sho Carolina at Chapel Hill believes th;
based on individuals’ abilities and qu
SLPersonal characteristics that have no
Counsel so she could pass on the re-
sponse of the Counsel concerning my
requests. When I arrived at the office,
she greeted me and proceeded to cite
several reasons why a sexual orienta
tion harassment notice would not be
sent out to students. It would also not
be sent in the fumre alongside racial
and sexual harassment policies.
The reasons for this decision ranged
from absurd to unreasonable. One
particularly absurd reason Counsel re
fused to send out this notice was that it
claimed that students do not read their
e-mail. Attempting to publicize this
particufar Umyersity policy in this man
ner, it was argued, would only be met
by student apathy and a general lack of
interest in the matter.
Even if students eventually do check
their e-mail. University Counsel
suggested that there w’ere logistical
problems with e-maiUng students
notice of the University anti-harass
ment policy on sexual orientation. It
argued that there are far too many
policies about which to notify stu
dents. A “slippery slope” was being
risked here by notifying students of
the HABSO polic}'. If this particular
anti-harassment policy is sent to stu
dents by e-mail, it was argued, there
will be little keeping the University
from having to notify students of all
policies by e-mail.
The final reason Counsel gave just
seemed to intimate that it did not
fully grasp the situation. It suggested
that it was already sufficiendy noti
fying students about the sexual ori
entation harassment policy. This suf
ficient notification was supposedly
accomplished by the Chancellor’s
initial memo from September 6, 2001
sent to Deans, Directors and Depart
ment Chairs concerning “Polic)' State
ments on Non-Discrimination.”
Why It Doesn’t Add Up
Counsel’s concerns about a lack of
e-mail use by students and a “slippery
slope” of policy publicity are so un
founded that it seems almost ridiculous
POLICY
to respond to them. Nevertheless, an analysis of
the above response by University Counsel is neces
sary. Suffice it to say, the University e-mail system
is widely used by thousands of students everyday
(compulsively by many). Its widespread daily use
is easily demonstrated by an increasing need for
additional campus Internet and e-mail stations. E-
mailing notice of three anti-harassment policies
(sexual orientation, sexual and racial) in one e-mail
rather than simply notice of two anti-harassment
policies (sexual and racial), as is currently done,
is not the first step down , a slippery slope. Even
if they choose to send out notice of the HABSO
policy, the University is still perfectly justified in
not advertising to students dated and non-essential
policies like those concerning, for instance, “Fac
ulty and Staff Travel to SAKS Areas.”
The University Counsel’s response is clearly a
refusal to adequately address the seriousness of
the University’s poor policy publicity. Reference
to the September 6 memorandum from Chancel
lor Moeser as a tool of Counsel’s notification to
students about anti-harassment policies does not
make sense. This memo did not even concern the
anti-harassment policy on sexual orientation. This
memo on the whole concerned itself solely with
“Policy Statement on Non-Discrimination” - as
its title reflects. The policy on nondiscrimination
is different from the HABSO policy. In addition,
this memo was not sent to students, but only to
“Deans, Directors and Department Chairs” - and
sent almost three years ago! There seems then to
be no good reason for the University to continue
to avoid publication of its own sexual orientation
harassment policy. What is behind this lack of ad
equate policy publicity?
Existing University Publicity Efforts
A quick look at current University' publicity of
the anti-harassment and non-discrimination poli
cies reveals general administrative apathy and ir
rational resistance to change. From the UNC
homepage, any user can “easily” find the Univer-
sity'’s policies on harassment and discrimination
by clicking on the link for “Administration,” then
“UNC-CH Policies,” then “Nondiscrimination.”
Once there, they are confronted with the following
links: AIDS: University Memo on Acquired Im
mune Deficiency Syndrome, Nondiscrimination:
Policy Statements on Nondiscrimination, Protec
tion for Reporting Improper Government Activi
ties, Racial Harassment Policy and Procedures and
continued on page 14