By Tysen Kendig
Public Information
To keep pace with federal guidelines and address government recommendations, Penn State has revised its administrative policies on harassment and non-discrimination. The revisions are intended to more accurately define such conduct and clearly outline the reporting process in the event someone feels victimized by this type of behavior.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently suggested that employers should have policies and procedures covering all types of unlawful harassment, not just sexual harassment. In addition, the U.S. Office for Civil Rights reviewed Penn State's harassment and non-discrimination policies before last June's diversity conference at University Park, and recommended that the University provide more adequate guidance on how to report and resolve complaints that were not of a sexual nature.
"We had a pretty strong sexual harassment statement in place already, but we certainly wanted to guard against other liability with a strong statement against harassment and discrimination based on age, race, gender, disability and other protected bases," said Bonnie Ortiz, director of affirmative action. "We've had a good non-discrimination statement, but we needed to operationalize it and inform people what to do if they experienced any form of discrimination."
The only change to the University's comprehensive sexual harassment policy, AD-41, is the addition of a directive to faculty or staff who receive complaints to contact the Office of Affirmative Action. At that time they will discuss the resolution and be able ensure campus-wide consistency in responding to these problems.
Revisions to the policy on non-discrimination and other forms of harassment, AD-42, are more extensive and deal with a much broader area of conduct. Previously, AD-42 was a brief statement of the University's non-discrimination policy. While this statement remains intact, the policy is enhanced by a specific definition of discrimination that applies to a wide audience of social groups, as was deemed essential by the EEOC. In addition, it now includes sections on resolving complaints, disciplinary sanctions and informational cross-references to related administrative and human resources policies.
Another important motive behind the revisions to both policies, according to Ortiz, was to give those who have experienced a form of harassment or discrimination a variety of outlets to voice their concerns.
"One thing we tried to do is make multiple points of contact available," said Ortiz. "Some people may want to go to someone with whom they are familiar and comfortable, like someone in their own department. Others want to talk to someone who doesn't know them at all and has no connection to them as a means of maintaining a level of anonymity.
Along these lines, Ortiz also praised the use of the Web as a means to put these policies in the hands of every student and employee in a very effective and private way. Until recently, policy manuals were only available in various offices and departments, which removed an element of privacy from the reporting and resolution procedure when students and employees were forced to ask for the manual. Now these policies can be accessed from the privacy of a computer terminal at http://guru.psu.edu/policies/.
While the changes to the policies appear to sufficiently cover all facets of harassment and discrimination, Ortiz said that Penn State would continue to benchmark and compare its policies with those at peer institutions. The University also would move swiftly to implement any further changes required as a result of any evolution in the law or new legal interpretations through court cases.
"The University has a commitment to making the climate good for everyone, and this is what our diversity strategic plan primarily addresses," said Ortiz. "Having these policies and being diligent about having them up-to-date and meeting the needs of everyone is a sure way of helping to meet our goals for the campus community."