Feld-Gore, Brand invent policy and apply it retroactively, cite “living document” *OPINIONS AHEAD, YE BE WARNED*
So, “the poster incident.” Remember that? Of course you do. Personally, I thought it was insensitive, harmful to community, and overall a stupid thing for someone to do. I am on record, if you don’t believe me.
In the talks that followed, information trickled out, including PioLog articles and conversations with Adrian (he’s the kid who did it), and it became clear that the incident was an attempt to catalyze discussion about Hawaii club’s ‘Be A Maori Warrior’ posters. It failed, it was a stupid way to attempt such a conversation, and it was certainly disheartening and disruptive. Personally, I think Adrian should be found guilty of *something*. And he was… of Harassment, Disorderly Conduct, and a “Hate or Bias Related Incident.” I’m not going to dispute the disorderly conduct. I’m not even going to dispute the harassment charge (even though I think it can be argued that his actions don’t fit our harassment policy). What I am really miffed about is the third violation. You know, the violation of the policy that doesn’t exist: “Hate or Bias Related Incident.” It was a policy created in light of this incident (and is still nowhere in writing, at least that is accessible to students).
It’s kind of like when Se7en came out and the MPAA basically had to invent a new description to explain just how many ways of “Rated R” that movie was.
Except this time it resulted in a significant blemish on someone’s conduct record (and not an MTV Movie Award). Sure, at the end of the day, our school’s stated policies are basically irrelevant, and the administration doesn’t even *need* to justify its actions if it doesn’t want to. But in the interest of fairness, transparency, satisfaction, and all those other buzzwords that are constantly tossed around by everyone, I think it might be a good idea to stick to the policies we state, and not make up violations because we get a ‘there ought to have been a policy against that’ feeling.
Administrators Latricia Brand (Associate Dean of Students & Director of Multicultural Affairs) and Jeff Feld-Gore (Associate Dean of Students) were quoted in this Friday’s Pio-Log that they felt that the ‘Hate and Bias-motivated Incident’ policy could be applied:
“I think that the appearance of bias, without having clear understanding of the intent, is something that the code at least can be interpreted to include,” said Brand.“It’s a living document,” said Feld-Gore, who said that the policy was explained to him by Brand.
HATE AND BIAS MOTIVATED INCIDENTS
The College appreciates the complexity of defining language and actions that are not acceptable in a community which values freedom of expression. All members of the Lewis & Clark community must be free to hold views that others may find distressing or offensive. However, freedom of expression does not include the right to intentionally and maliciously aggravate, intimidate, ridicule, or humiliate another person.
The College has a comprehensive discrimination and harassment policy (see p. 224) which articulates our commitment to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bias. To further clarify the types of language and behavior that are unacceptable, the U.S. Department of Justice’s definitions and examples are offered:
“A hate crime can be generally defined as a crime which in whole or part is motivated by the offender’s bias toward the victim’s status. A hate incident is an action in which a person is made aware that her/his status is offensive to another, but does not rise to the level of a crime.
“Hate crimes are intended to hurt and intimidate individuals because they are perceived to be different with respect to their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The purveyors of hate use physical violence, verbal threats of violence, vandalism, and in some cases weapons to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to subsequent attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious, and fearful. These acts of hatred can leave lasting emotional impressions upon their victims as well as entire communities.
“Federal and state reporting requirements vary in the definitions and victim categories for hate crimes. The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (28 USC §534), Campus Security Act (20 USC §1092), state, and local hate crimes legislation list specific crimes which are identifiable as a hate crime, including murder, manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson, forcible and non-forcible sex offenses, intimidation, destruction, damage or vandalism of property in which the victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim.
“When they do not fall into one of the listed criminal categories, hate offenses are referred to as bias-motivated incidents. These incidents may include cases of minor harassment, verbal slurs, etc.”
Hate- and bias-related incidents are demeaning to all members of the campus community and subvert the mission of the College. Any hate- or bias-motivated act is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
First, it’s important to note that “p. 224″ doesn’t exist. From what I can find, this PDF is only 39 pages long and the entire Pathfinder is 89.
Regardless of my personal opinion about the following factors, I want to clarify that I do not intend to argue here that Adrian is not guilty of any wrongdoing, nor do I intend to insinuate that a policy to cover the grey-area Adrian uncovered is necessarily a bad idea moving forward.
It is, however, very unjust to apply any such policy to his actions retroactively.
Our policy is worded in terms of motivation. Based on the discussions and articles about this incident, it is 100% clear that this was not an act motivated by malice towards an individual or a group of people. It was an act of parody that used extreme racist imagery to highlight what was perceived to be racist imagery in another flyer. It was a bad, failed piece of satire, because no one was talking about the original posters, just the extreme amount of poor-taste that went into these flyers, but it was still motivated by satire. Even if you found this to be the most offensive thing you’ve ever seen (even I think they were probably the most offensive thing I’ve seen at L&C), that cannot change the fact that the motivation was not malicious. The motivation was not racist. Our reaction certainly implied it, and without a backstory, it would be logical to assume that this incident was motivated by malice…. but we have a backstory, and our reaction to an act does not change the reasoning that went into producing that act.
To shoehorn this incident into the clear-cut boundaries of a policy that doesn’t cover it is arrogantly irresponsible of the powers that be. To create a new set of guidelines, change some wording (“motivated” -> “related”), and essentially morph the policy into something it never was, without getting student input, and then immediately apply it to events that happened before this new policy was even considered necessary (and without allowing the student body to even see this new policy in writing), is wrong.
I’ve noticed that Feld-Gore seems to especially favor two words (evidence: same Pio-Log article). First, “no,” which is what he said when Adrian appealed his decision by making an argument not unlike the one I’ve just presented. His second favorite word, at least lately, seems to be “comment” (of course, this is preceded by the first favorite word), which is a convenient, irrefutable cure-all to any questioning his actions may inspire. FERPA is one thing, but, for example, “Why didn’t you send out the letter?” is a valid question, I think.
In my opinion, no one, regardless of what they’ve done, deserves to be found guilty of violating an imaginary policy. It’s probably too late for that. Furthermore, I think that arbitrary decisions justified by acts of non-information are not a stable foundation for a college’s conduct system.
Also, this entire incident, its followup, and fallout totally remind me of this. Like a lot.
Now I invite you to tell me in the comments section why I’m wrong.
[Administrator]
Cary
kennner
dshack
maishaparadox
angelalc
I just have to wonder whether the mysterious pg. 224 is from a printing of these policy in the hard copy of the college catalog?
With the harassment, etc. charges that Adrian faced, why did he get charged with this when all of the posters were taken down before I, for one, and I think a reasonable section of campus ever saw them? I distinctly remember that the first of this that I heard of was in an email from our Dean of Students.
Yeah, the only thing I can think of is that it’s a relic of an older draft and was overlooked in the last overhaul.
As for the harassment question you bring up, I think it’s interesting to think about, but in an instance where someone *did* intend to harass a group or individual by posting flyers, the duration of the flyers’ being posted probably wouldn’t be considered. Do you know what I mean? That being the case, I don’t think it would be fair to argue that something is–or is not–harassment based on whether they were actually able to harass the intended audience.
You hit the nail on the head, man. Failed satire != hate speech. Pity the administration would rather mar a kid’s permanent record than admit error.
For the record, I made it public so that everyone WOULD see it.
I’m tired of handling things behind closed doors. Anyone who works often with the administration on issues that might cause conflict knows that the administration likes to keep everything behind closed doors.
Why is public better? Because everybody saw the Lu’au posters, and most accepted them. Now everyone is thinking.
If the administration had handled it, I don’t think anyone besides a handful would have ever even known there was a problem.
Also for the record, I apologize for not executing this in a more complete way. It was a stupid mistake to not create more of a permanent context, such as a disclaimer. It caused pain, and that is a tragedy.
And just so everyone knows, I have no hard feelings for any person, even most of the administration.
I think that they handled the situation in a bad way, but they are for the most part good people.
This is just another fine example of the momentum the College is taking to make students at LC feel like guests in someone else’s kingdom. All Administrators and Staff need to realize we are here at the whim of the students. Students pay the majority of our bills, 70% according to that horrible make-me-feel-like-a-dick-for-getting-a-college-degree Tuition Freedom Day.
To treat students like this without student input is inexcusable. Why do students have the Peer Review Authority?
LC is where we work, LC is where students live and begin their adult lives. Let’s start respecting that please. Otherwise our abysmal alumni support will continue to falter with more and more students graduate wishing they had gone with ugly campus but supportive Administration/Staff (Willamette, I’m looking at you).
Hey Cary Boy,
Your reading of the policy is a little wrong. Don’t get so caught up with the word “motivated” in the title of the policy: the definition has no comment of motivation. The Bias Motivated Incident, as it reads from the excerpt, is any “hate offense” that is not categorically a “hate crime” but still has a victim that “is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim.”
It might seem trivial, but unless you think someone should be able to put up a banner on campus that says “I love [insert racial epithet]” or allow people to simply lie about their motivation, it’s a necessary clarification.
I can see your point, but I don’t think it changes my argument, because “intention,” like “motivation,” means that if a policy violation occurs, it is because a person tried to do something hateful towards someone else. Community reaction is not taken into consideration at all. If a person did not mean to do something hateful towards someone else, then it is not a violation of this policy. My “motivation” argument could just as easily be rephrased to say that he did *not* intend to select anyone as a victim for any of those reasons in the policy.
You’re right that motivation isn’t referenced as much in the policy as it is in the title of the policy, and I probably should have addressed that, but I don’t think that the way it *is* phrased in detail legitimizes the administration’s interpretation in this case.
In the interest of furthering discourse, y’all may like to have the full text of the policy on hand (sections about intent vs. impact have been stared, since that seems to be the issue y’all are discussing).
————————————————————————————————————
HATE AND BIAS **MOTIVATED** INCIDENTS
The College appreciates the complexity of defining language and actions that are not acceptable in a community
which values freedom of expression. All members of the Lewis & Clark community must be free to hold views that
others may find distressing or offensive. However, freedom of expression does not include the right to** intentionally
and maliciously** aggravate, intimidate, ridicule, or humiliate another person.
The College has a comprehensive discrimination and harassment policy (see p. 224) which articulates our
commitment to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bias. To further clarify the types of
language and behavior that are unacceptable, the U.S. Department of Justice’s definitions and examples are
offered:
“A hate crime can be generally defined as a crime which in whole or part is **motivated by the offender’s bias toward
the victim’s status**. A hate incident is an action **in which a person is made aware that her/his status is offensive** to
another, but does not rise to the level of a crime.
“Hate crimes are **intended to hurt and intimidate individuals because they are perceived to be different** with
respect to their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The purveyors of hate
use physical violence, verbal threats of violence, vandalism, and in some cases weapons to instill fear in their
victims, leaving them vulnerable to subsequent attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious, and fearful.
These acts of hatred can leave lasting emotional impressions upon their victims as well as entire communities.
“Federal and state reporting requirements vary in the definitions and victim categories for hate crimes. The FBI
Uniform Crime Reporting Program (28 USC §534), Campus Security Act (20 USC §1092), state, and local hate crimes
legislation list specific crimes which are identifiable as a hate crime, including murder, manslaughter, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson, forcible and non-forcible sex offenses, intimidation,
destruction, damage or vandalism of property **in which the victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or
perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim**.
“**When they do not fall into one of the listed criminal categories, hate offenses are referred to as bias-motivated
incidents**. These incidents may include cases of minor harassment, verbal slurs, etc.”
**Hate- and bias-related incidents are demeaning to all members of the campus community and subvert the mission**
of the College. **Any hate- or bias-motivated act is unacceptable** and will not be tolerated.