THURSDAY October 27, 2011 Volume 97, Issue 36 W W W.T H E D A I LYA Z T E C . C O M
facebook.com/dailyaztec twitter: thedailyaztec
SCAN CODE FOR MOBILE CONTENT
SDSU’S INDEPENDENT STUDENT N E W S PA P E R SINCE 1913
INDEX:
SPOTLIGHT
SDSU abuse policies under FIRE ANTONIO ZARAGOZA, PHOTO EDITOR
Some campus codes being called too ambiguous Beth Elderkin managing editor Two harassment and abuse policies at San Diego State are on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s “yellow light” caution list. The national free-speech group said each policy has the potential to infringe on an SDSU student’s right to free speech. SDSU has been a free speech campus since 2005. FIRE upgraded SDSU to a yellow-light grade in August, after a change to the university’s academic computer use policy helped persuade FIRE to remove its previous red-light grade. According to FIRE’s director of legal and public advocacy, Will Creeley, the problem with the two harassment and abuse policies is certain words are too ambiguous. This is something UC Los Angeles constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh said could lead to a violation of students’ free speech rights based on personal interpretations.
“The policies are vague and overbroad, and therefore unconstitutional,” Volokh said. The first is the Harassment and Abusive Behavior policy from the SDSU Student Organization Handbook. The second is the Physical Abuse and Harassment policy which, according to SDSU Director of Residential Education Christy Samarkos, all students must sign before moving into the residential halls. Both policies were on SDSU’s website at the start of this semester.
Housing license agreement The Physical Abuse and Harassment policy states: “Physical, verbal and other abusive behavior, and threats of physical abuse toward residents, guests or staff are violations of policy and will not be tolerated.” Should any student living in the residence halls violate this legally binding policy, he or she could be removed from the residence hall, evicted or charged with a criminal offense. Samarkos said this is to protect students living on campus. “Our goal is to create safe, secure and hopefully respectful communi-
ties,” Samarkos said. “This is their home, so we want them to feel comfortable and safe.” However, SDSU Associate Director of Residential Education Darrell Hess said the policy is only to protect students from genuine harassment and abuse, not to give them an outlet to complain about behavior they may find offensive. “We want to make sure their rights are upheld,” Samarkos said. According to FIRE, the potential infringement of student rights is how vaguely abuse is defined. Volokh said punishable abuse should be limited to physical behaviors and threats of violence, instead of generalizing to include verbal and “other” types of abuse. Creeley said even though the policy may have examples of what qualifies as abusive behavior, including sexual and racial harassment, fighting and threats of violence, it does not mean those examples are the only ones the policy can reprimand. This, he said, is because the word “other” is included in the definition of abuse. “Any number of expressive activities could perhaps be constituted as ‘other’
abusive behavior, were they deemed to be so by the audience,” Creeley said. Samarkos and Hess were not sure when the policy started including “other” as a type of abuse, but Hess said it is included for a reason. “Things change every day in the world around us,” he said. “New ways of harassing and intimidating people are going to come up, and we want to make sure we say harassment and intimidation are not allowed, regardless of the form.” FIRE’s other main issue with the policy was how it included verbal speech as a type of abuse, because most forms of speech are legally protected by the First Amendment, except for threats of violence. Volokh agreed, as he said it is almost impossible to accurately define what type of speech is or is not abusive. “There’s no way to tell if calling someone a jerk, which is protected under the First Amendment, qualifies as verbal abuse,” Creeley said. “You’ve effectively left the entire campus only able to speak to each other in a way that the most sensitive person on campus would find acceptable.”
staff writer The California State University Trustees don’t have to abide by the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act on raises for salary ranges for top executives, according to a court ruling by Judge James Chalfant. The Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act states: “It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.” On Tuesday, Chair of the CSU Board of Trustees Herbert L. Carter and Chancellor Charles B. Reed faced a claim by Lillian Taiz, president of the California Faculty
Association, for a potential violation of the Bagley-Keene act. The court hearing discussed a meeting held by the CSU Committee on University and Faculty Personnel in January in which the committee approved the annual salary for the campus president at California Polytechnic San Luis Obispo, Dr. Jeffrey D. Armstrong, at $350,000. The CSU “2007 Salary Schedule” was to be effective from July 1, 2007 until Feb. 1 of this year for presidents’ maximum annual salary of $328,212. On Oct. 24, a CFA news release stated: “The CSU failed to give the public notice that this pay was more than $20,000 higher than that of the preceding president and more than $20,000 higher than what the salary range allowed.” According to the writ of mandate, “Taiz is entitled to a judicial determination that the Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act was applicable to Respondents’ (Carter and Reed) January 25, 2011 meeting of the Committee on University and Faculty Personnel, and that the written agenda of that meeting failed to comply with the notice requirements of the statute by failing to notify the public that the Committee on University and Faculty Personnel would consider adopting an annual salary for Armstrong that would exceed the then-current maximum annual rate of the executive management classification “president.” In February, the CSU Trustees consented to the salary maximum of $350,004 for presidents. The legal mandate said, “... the written agenda of the meeting failed to comply with the notice requirement of the statute by failing to notify the public that the Committee on University and Faculty Personnel would con-
3
E N T E R TA I N M E N T Check out the must-see parties going on during Halloween weekend.
5 8
SPORTS
see Policies on page 2
Judge closes transparency debate Stacy Garcia
SDSU Formula SAE Team races with car built from scratch.
sider increasing the salary range maximum for the executive management classification President.” Glenn Rothner, CFA’s attorney, said the increasing salary range is a public matter that should be in accordance with the California open meeting laws. “In this case the court accepted the (CSU Trustees’) argument that a salary range for executives is a meaningless, bureaucratic matter not of concern to the public,” Rothner said. The CFA responded to the court’s decision and said the increase in executive pay “is a concern for the 99 percent,” and Rothner said the increasing salary range for executives in the CSU system is a matter of public concern. Taiz also said Chancellor Reed’s approach to this issue is weakening the quality of education and the lack of transparency is unacceptable, particularly with the current budgetary issues in the system.
The line went quiet for a few moments. Michelle heard a rhythmic pulse through the static of her cell phone every time the train passed a telephone pole, so quiet she wondered if she was just hearing things. “Meet any men?” B A C K PA G E
12
W E AT H E R : SUNNY HIGH: 71 LOW: 50 SUNSET:6:02PM