On Tuesday, March 30th, students re-submitted the chalking policy proposed by the WSA’s Subcommittee on Chalking in December of 2002, for President Bennet’s consideration. This past Sunday, the WSA passed a resolution, supporting a “resubmission of the chalking sub-committee’s December 18th, 2002 proposal” and demanding “that President Bennet immediately reverse his ban accordingly and affirm the right to free discourse through chalking. ”In support of the effort to end the ban, we are publishing the proposed chalking policy in order to inform community members of the WSA’s and the students’ resubmission of this proposed policy to President Bennet. Students ask that President Bennet come to a decision regarding this resubmission within a week—by Tuesday, April 6th. If President Bennet does not respond to this by then, students will consider it a denial of the proposed policy, and will take further action.
Students have already given him a year and a half to consider whether or not to listen to overwhelming community opinion on this issue.
Proposed Chalking Policy December 18, 2002: Freedom of thought and expression is essential to the mission of Wesleyan University as an institution of higher learning. At Wesleyan, students have traditionally found chalking to be a unique and productive form of communication. Chalking often serves as an impetus for members of the community to begin discussion. It is a forum through which silenced members of the community have found a strong, and importantly anonymous, form of communication that allows them to reach a broad audience.
While the University recognizes the weight of the concerns of members of the community who are upset by chalkings, guidelines that ban or punish speech based upon its content cannot be justified. If it asserts the power to proscribe ideas, this institution impedes the fulfillment of its mission and even offensive speech is an expression of an idea. (1)
A. Chalking is permitted only on sidewalks. Chalking is not permitted on any building, steps to a building, pillars, porches, or patios that are part of a building. Only washable (non-grease based) chalk may be used on Wesleyan grounds.
B. Hostile or intimidating chalkings referring to individuals create an environment antithetical to constructive dialogue and are strongly discouraged. Individual members of the campus community may have references to them removed. (2) To have such a chalking removed, individuals must file formal complaints with the Office of Affirmative Action.
C. If an individual member of the Wesleyan Community believes that a particular chalking violates the University’s harassment policies, the individual should file a formal complaint with the Office of Affirmative Action. Chalkings will be promptly reviewed on a case-by-case basis only as complaints are filed. (3) Other individuals and organizations are not permitted to erase chalkings. If members of the community disagree with or are offended by certain chalkings, they should respond to these chalkings through various forms of campus communication.
D. Campus chalking can be a powerful mode of communication for members of the Wesleyan community but it does have limitations. Therefore, individuals and groups who chalk are strongly encouraged to utilize other forms of communication in order to enhance campus discourse regarding the issues at hand.
Individuals and groups who chalk are highly encouraged to engage in dialogue through a campus webboard. Chalkers are strongly encouraged to contribute to a webboard discussion and post links to various resources concerning the issue being chalked. This webboard presents an opportunity for discussion as questions, feelings, and statements can be expressed with the option of maintaining anonymity/confidentiality.
Some options for further discussion are listed below:
1. Wespeaks
2. Community discussions / forums
3. Fliers
4. Classroom discussion
5. Radio call-in hour
6. Telephone / bulletin broadcast
7. WesEvents
8. Teach-ins
9. Chalking in response
10. Open Mics
11. ResHall Discussions / Snacks
12. Programming
13. Individual discussions
14. Chat rooms
15. Listserves
(Endnotes)
(1) The language of this section closely reflects that used by the American Association of University Professors in ‘On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes’ in the July/August 1992 Academe.
(2) An ‘explicit’ reference may be defined as a one which refers to the individual by name or which describes the person in such a way as to cause a third party to believe that the reference is in regard to that person. Chalkings which refer explicitly to an individual which that individual has asked to have removed may be removed even if it does not necessarily constitute sexual harassment.
(3) The Office of Affirmative Action will be responsible for reviewing chalkings only as formal complaints are filed. When reviewing complaints the Office must keep in mind the Supreme Courtís’ opinions in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), which established that a sexually harassing work environment is one which “is permeated with discriminatory behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a discriminatorily hostile or abusive working environment” and Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993), which Justice O’Connor claimed attempted to define as actionable, conduct that fell between “merely offensive” and which constituted tangible psychological injury, thereby deciding that offense does not constitute harassment or abuse. Justice O’Connor said that in determining whether an environment was hostile or abusive, one must look at several circumstances including the frequency of the offensive conduct; ‘its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating; or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.“
Leave a Reply