|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
For a week after the fight on football Saturday, there were editorials
and letters in the Daily discussing the fight and the state of
racial relations on campus. Several student groups demanded tough action
to suppress racism and racist language. Others blamed the problems on a
small group of ill-mannered individuals. Speech codes and other rules,
they suggested, would do little to change such behavior. The editors
themselves called for a campus teach-in. One faculty group suggested
sensitivity classes for all incoming freshmen.
Not long after the fight, events occurred that guaranteed more
controversy. In the auditorium of the Physics Building, where hundreds of
students took first year physics, someone printed a single line across the
board shortly before class: "A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE,
ESPECIALLY ON A NIGGER." A photograph appeared in the Daily. No
one claimed responsibility. A few days later a DJ on the campus radio
station told several racial jokes during his broadcast. Although he
apologized later, his actions were especially upsetting to the Black
Student Organization.
The football incident, the graffiti, and the radio broadcast were
quickly called to the attention of the State House of Representatives.
Hearings were held locally and many speakers criticized the university for
neglecting the problems faced by black students and ignoring evidence of
racism on campus. There were hints that funding for the university might
suffer if no action were taken.
At about the same time, the Coalition Against Racism on Campus (CAROC)
threatened to sue the university for not maintaining a non-racist,
non-violent atmosphere on campus.
University president Dowell promised action. A plan was developed that
included a policy on racial harassment. The policy was submitted to the
University Board of Regents and adopted on December 1st. Officially, it
was referred to as the Policy on Discrimination and Discriminatory
Harassment of Students in the University Environment. Popularly, it was
called "the speech code."
The harassment policy did not apply equally to all parts of the campus. It distinguished between "public forums", "University Housing," and "academic and educational centers." In classroom buildings, libraries, and study halls, it forbade any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatized or victimized an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status when that behavior involves a threat to an individual's academic efforts or creates a hostile or demeaning environment for educational pursuits.
The policy favored informal solutions. It also provided for a graduated
scale of sanctions ranging from a simple reprimand to expulsion.
The university published a guidebook that supplied examples of prohibited conduct. The examples included drawing racist graffiti, distributing a flyer containing racist threats, telling jokes about gay men, derogatory comments about someone's religious beliefs, and more.
Reactions varied, but everyone reacted. Professors at the law school took both sides. The Daily published dozens of letters. Arguments flew back and forth in classrooms and dorm rooms. Some concerns were moral, others were legal. The university had a code and the fat was in the fire.