THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNTVERSITY I W"shington, D.C. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE HELD ON APRIL 27,2OOI,IN THE MARVIN CENTER" 800 21* STREET, N',W, ROOM 403 The meeting was called to order by Vice President I-ehman at}zli p.m. Present: President Trachtenberg, Vice President Lehman, Interim Registrar Terpstra, and Parliamentarian Pagel; Dean Phillips; Professors Bosurell, Castleberry, Divita" Duff, Gallo, Griffith, flaque, HarrinSon, Lindahl, Mergen, Park, Pelzman, Robinson, Simon, Stephanic, Wilmarthr and Yezer Absent Deans Futrell, Harding, Lefton, Riegelman, Tong, Williams, and Young; Professors Captain, Cawlep Floare, Johnston, McAleavey, N.gy, Thornton, and Zaghloul RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION 00 '6,'rA RESOLUTION ON THE REYISED DRAFT OF THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES'' Professor Robinson, Chair of the Committee on Professional Ethics and Academic Freedom (PEAF) moved the following amendments to Resolution 00/6r \- (1) In the Sixth WHEREAS Clause, Line 4, replace the word "reiected" with ttsubstantially the words modifiedt' to more accurately describe the process that occurred. a) In the Seventh WHEREAS Clause, Letter C, add the word uallD afaer the word ttdocumentst'with sinformationr'and "discoverrtt replace the word the word delete (and the phrase the names of adverse witnesses.t' This change was being made in reference to the exchange of information before a hearing; the Administration document did not provide full protection against adverse use of hearsay evidence (information). That is, oral statements that had been made would not be required; this would include oral statements made to the Coordinator. The Administration document, she said, would only cover written documents. (3) In the Ninth WHEREAS Clause, replace the word "counsel" with the words *faculty *formal membersrt'because the term "counselt'might imply representationr'when, in facq faculty members were only speaking on their own behalf. The motion was seconded. The question was called, and the Robinson amendments were passed. With respect to Resolution 00/6 itself, Professor Robinson reiterated its purpose: \- 't Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, Lpfit27r2001 Page2 -1 1. It addresses the process with respect to the Faculqds expectations and commitment to "shared governancett and the fact that long-established procedures have not been followed by the administration with respect to its unilateral changes to a document approved by the Faculty Senate. We need to follow that procedure. 2. Secondly, and most importantly, the Senate is actually being asked to stand by its own work The Senate is not asking the Administration, she said, to look at a new document; it is asking the Administration to reaffirm support of the Senate Policy passed in Mayr 2000, because the Senate believes the revisions remove important procedural protections, and they do not meet with Senate approval. In conclusion, Professor Robinson said that the Resolution is simply anaffirrnation of the Committee's view, supported by the Pol.iry the Faculty Senate approved in May, 2000, that the removal of procedural protections was not being done with the Faculty Senate's approval. Professor Robinson then yielded the floor to Professor Arthur E. Wilma*h for his comments. Professor Wilmarth distributed a Memorandum dated April 27r200lrwhich described the important differences between the (1) the draft of the Sexual Flarassment Policy and Procedures as approved by the Faculty Senate on May 5, 2000, and (2) the Administrationrs draft of the Policy and Procedures as most recently revised by the Yerner Liipfert law firm on March 30, 1 2001. He then summarized the key differences between the two proposed Policies, emphasizing that the Administrationts draft had deleted a number of vital due process protections that are provided by the Faculty Senate document. Cfh. Memorandum dated April 2712001" regarding Proposed Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures - Key Differences between the Faculty Senate and Administration Drafts, is attached and made apart of these Minutes.) In speaking against the Administrationts document, Professor Wilmarth cited guidelines published by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education and a recent federal court decision, Saxe v. State College area School Disrictr?/;OF,3d 200 (3d Cir.2001). In Professor Wilmarth's view, these legal authorities clearly indicate that an educational institution must protect rights of free expression and due process when it adopts a sexual harassment policy. Accordingly, Professor Wilmarth contended that, if the University chose to encroach upon the facultfs right of free expression or upon due process, it was doing so entirely upon its own motion and was under no legal obligation to do so. His own view was that the proposed Procedures could only be described as Kafkaesque, and he read a few passages from The Trial to make his point. Professor Wilmarth strongly urged the Senate members to stand up and affirm that theywould not accept the infringements upon academic freedom and due process contained in the Administration's document. FIe concluded by saying that if the Senate were not willing to stand up and be counted, due process and the right of free expression would cease to be protected at GW University as of this day. Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, Lpril27r200l Page 3 Professor Boswell then asked for the privilege of the floor for Vice President Dennis Blumer, the Universityts General Counsel. The privilege of the floor was granted. Vice President Blumer said that he wante{ to put the revised draft before the Senate in some context, and observed that the draft now under consideration had seen many changes. The reason for the many changes, he said, was because the issues were important, and the views on these issues less than uniform. He said that it was a document produced by the community. He then described the procedure bywhich the Policy and Procedures had been developed by parties inside, and outside of, the University. The draft before the Senate, Vice President Blumer continued, was a product of all of the discussions - an amalgam of the Senatets recommended document, together with those changes counsel believed necessary for the document to pass legal muster. Yice President Blumer told the Faculty Senate that the proposed policy, including the tegally mandated changes, was clearly in the mainstream of policies adopted by maior universities around the country. He added that the Vemer-Liipfert law firm had analyzed a number of policies from other institutions, and this analysis was distributed to the Senate. Vice President Blumer pointed out that the proposed policy contains a high number of procedural safeguards for both complainant and respondent as set forth in the representative list prepared by Outside Counsel and also distributed to the Senate. Finalln Vice President Blumer said that any policy, administered unfairly, would certainlyyield unfair results, and he promised his Offrce would do its part if the proposed Policy were approved, by administering it fairly, competently, and forthrightly, as had been done for the past three years with the Interim Sexual Flarassment Policy. And, he added, because the Policy could touch upon and affect matters of academic freedom and individual rights, the Policywould be under continuing and close reviewwith the passage of time, so that any case law or regulatory guidance that might become available could be considered in any subsequent amendments to the Policy. Professor Gallo then spoke in favor of reiecting Resolution AA/6, She began by enumerating the WHEREAS Clauses in Resolution 00/6, and commenting upon the content of trxrelve of them. In speaking against the Resolution, Professor Gallo said that the outcry against the Sexual Flarassment Policy and Procedures (particularly the Procedures) which began in January 2000 and which has continued against the present draft Policy, was without merit and not broadly reflective of the faculty the Senate represents. She noted that procedural issues, or issues of due process, had not arisen in the previous two years during which the Policy and Procedures were discussed and arose only after the ad hoc committeets draft was completed. The Faculty Senate identified no procedural issues when it referred the Interim Policyand Procedures to the ad hoc committee. Two generations of the Professional Ethics and Academic Freedom Committee that reviewed the Interim Policy and Procedures suggested only one substantive change to the Procedures. Simitarly, she saidr lenghy consultation between faculty and the ad hoc committee revealed concerns about the Poliry, but not the Procedures, and Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, Lpril27,200L Page 4 when the ad hoc committee circulated its work and solicited comments, none were forthcoming that related to Procedures. Professor Gallo went on to say that it was.puzzling that with all of these opportunities for earlier input, that concern about the Procedures had materialized only recently. She said that she thought the reason was simple--that the present concem expressed about the procedures was a smoke-screen to camouflage a policy issue, which was the inclusion, by the ad hoc committee, of classroom conduct as a subiect for a sexual harassment claim. Consequently, those that favor this Resolution wish now to set the procedural bar so high to protect faculty, she said, that the Policy and Procedures would be rendered useless for the remainder of the University community, where most sexual harassment claims originate. Further, a student with a meritable claim of harassment would be discouraged from coming forward, or if they did, the claim would unlikely lead to a finding of harassment against the faculty member. (fhe complete text of Professor Gallo's comments are appended to and made part of these Minutes.) Professor Park said that he had served on the Senate many times since coming to GW, starting as Parliamentarian, and then sewing in the Senate, and on various committees, and in all that time, he said that he didn't know a single issue that was so emotionally intense for the faculty to consider as this one. It was, he thought, not a simple issue, but a very difficult one. Since he had taught administrative law since his first yeu at GW, he said that due process was central in these sorts of matters, and the courts have construed due process to be fairness under the circumstances. As interpreted over the years without signilicant deviation, Professor Park continued, due process includes adequate notice and the opportunity to make an adequate argument for oneself, and to respond to and confront the evidence. So, he said that he thought that there was a set of traditional guidelines as to fairness to which the Senate could refer confidently without tbeling that somehow the system was being burdened by impossible procedures. On the other hand, he said, sensitivity to the interests of students, particularly female students who might be intimidated, who are in a power relationship with members of the faculty, or even with lab assistants, was necessary, and consideration had to be given both to the student's reluctance to complain and to anxiety about being identified. He noted that many sexual assaults and incidents of spousal abuse go unreported because people are afraid of the embarrassment, and of being pilloried or cross-examined by lawyers in a way that they would be essentially savaged without iustification. However, he continued, the Senate needed to proceed in a way that would provide elements of counseling, preliminary iudgments that are fair to everyone, and in a context that was fair. Fairness, he said, goes in all directions, and ultimately any Policy must be fair to the institution, the faculty, the students, and the staffemployees, and thus discharge the duty of all members of the campus community to one another. Professor Park then noted that yet another element has recently inserted itself into the picture with local media interest in the subiect of sexual harassment and the Senatets debate on the subiect. With heightened awareness, he said, it is particularly important to set the stage for a process that has integrity that the Senate can defend, and not settle upon a process as Columbia University did, with a policy recklessly tilted in one direction. \-' Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, Lptil}lr200I Page 5 In order to achieve the goal of fairness to all constituencies, Professor Park said that the Senate must also rely upon the expertise of the University Counsel, Outside Counsel, and faculty members who are experts, and he reminded the Senate of Professor John BanzhaPs expertise on the issue and his participation in the Senate debate last year on this Poliry. Professor Banzhaf, he said, is an individual who has litigated these issues a number of times, but he is also sensitive to the academic institutional interest, as well as the student interest, of which he has been a particular advocate. He knew, he said, that Professor Banzhaf was not someone who was trlnng tL isolate, degrade, humiliate, or frustrate legitimate student complaints. Professor Park then said that he hoped that the Senate could express its appreciation to Professor Banzhaf on the record for his contributions on the issue, and if possible, make the floor available to him to comment on responsive questions when his expertise would be useful. Professor Pelzman followed up by noting that in the administration documents, several terms recurred, among them, slegallymandated, 6'mainstream'and oeffective.t' In that context, he asked that the University Counsel delineate what was not effective in the Sexual Flarassment Policy which does not provide the accused with details of the accusation. Why, he asked, would the Policy be effective if only one side - the respondent and Coordinator knew the details of the accusation? It seemed to him, he said, that any Policy had to be effective both ways, and it was not clear why barring this information rendered the Policy more effective. Secondly, Professor Pelzman said there was the question of the hearing itself, or rather the lack in the proposed Policy of an opportunity for one. Professor Pelzman asked again why this provision would make the Policy more effective, and he noted that when the Senate's Executive Committee asked to have Outside Counsel meet with its own faculty members it had done so with the idea of seeking a compromise in mind. In order to consider such a compromise he said, the Executive Committee wanted Outside Counsel to show why the new version was more effective than the Senate-approved Policy, but this was not done. The maior behavior modification that would take place if the proposed Policy were adopted, he said, would be a limit on free speech in the classroom, and he noted that faculty are supposed to challenge people in the classroom, not to provide them with Mickey Mouse explanations of issues. He concluded by sayng that there was absolutely no reason to adopt the administrationts version, since it had not been shown that the Senate's Poliry fails to provide safety for the accuser. Mr. Peter Pantaleo introduced himself as a partner in the law firm ofYerner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, which firm had been retained to advise the University concerning the Sexual I{arassment Policy and Procedures. Mr. Pantaleo summarized his background for the Senate, saylng he was in charge of the Civil Rights and Appointments practice at Verner, Liipferg and he had developed a subspecialty in assisting employers in what he termed opoliticalty challenged environmentsD to develop and adopt sexual harassment and discrimination policies. Mr. Pantaleo said that his frrm had drafted the sexual harassment policy for the United States Congress under its then General Counsel, Cheryl [-owe. Mr. Pantaleo began by sayrng that although the phrase *sexual harassment" was being used to characterize the Potiry under review, the term more appropriately used would be "civil Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, Lpril 27, Z00L Page 6 rights enforcement." There were two federal larvs in play here, he said, those being the Civil Rights Act of L964, anid ttre 1972 Amendments to the Education Act. There could be no debate that George Washington University was covered by both. The Poliry is not a Code, Mr. Pantaleo said, even though it has been referred to as such in much of the correspondence. He explaindd that a Code is a mandated set of rules that need to be followed, and that those rules, in the form of the laws cited above, had already been established. The Universiq/s Policy, he said, was an attempt to provide guidance for the following of rules already established by Congress, promulgated by the EEOC and the Office of Civil Rights, and interpreted by the Courts. If classroom conduct were proscribed or limited, he said, this was not a result of the University Policy, it was a result of federal discrimination statutes. Moreover, he added, the definition of sexual harassment continued to evolve e.g., iust this week the Supreme Court had determined in a Title XII (which covers employment) case that 6an occasional utterance or an offensive statement is not sexual harassment.t' Mr. Pantaleo emphasized a second time that it is the law that is imposing this on GW, not Verner, Liipfert, and not the Poliry as it has been drafted. The Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures, Mr. Pantaleo said, were an attempt to mitigate the impact of very aggressive civil rights law enforcement mechanisms, made necessary by 100 years of systemic discrimination in the United States. Mr. Pantaleo then explained quid pro quo harassment to the Senate, observing that in these cases the law imposed strict liability upon employers, whether they knew of or endorsed the conduct or not. This was because, in the employment context, the manager's ability to promote is the employer's ability, and his or her actions were therefore those of the employer. Mr. Pantaleo then explained hostile work environment harassment, saying that in the Faragher case, the Supreme Court determined they would always make the employer responsible for hostile environment harassmenq however, employers could asseft as an alfirmative defense that they had a sexual harassment policy, and that that policy was effective, i.e., that people would use it. It is reasonable, he said, that a policy that people would use would take into account the fact that sexual harassment is not about sex, it is about power, and that people who hold the power also hold the ability to remedy the harassment. Thus, he said, it was necessary for a sexual harassment policy to encourage people to come forward. If, he added, a complainant went to the sexual harassment coordinator and this resulted in the requirement of a written statement, which would be turned over to the employer, along with a variety of other procedural safeguards advocated by the Faculty Senate, he doubted very much that a court would be fikely to find this procedure reasonable. Mr. Pantaleo continued his discussion of the Universiqfs absolute obligation to investigate allegations of sexual harassment and enforce its policy. Faculty members, as supervisors under the law, can bind the University as to liability. If an action is so serious that it meets the defrnition of actionable under Title Vllr.only if it is so severe or pervasive, or the behavior is so obiectively offensive (according to the Supreme Court) as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment, that is what is prohibited. The law requires investigation of all allegations, he said, even if the alleged victim does not wish to come forward. In some cases, it may not even be the victim who makes the complaint, and Mr. Pantaleo described a scenario in \-, Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, Lpril27,200t PageT which four male students were aware of a female student's "trade for a grade" relationship with the faculty member teaching the class. In such cases, he said, the details of an allegation may involve third parties and requiring a written statement may inhibit complaints and the University may be deemed unreasonable in requiring complainants to do so. FinallS he said, there was the issue of effectiveness, and in order to be effective, a policy would be one that people are likely to use, and in fact will use, and that policy would not put procedural burdens in the complainant's way in a manner that will discourage them from using the policy. Professor Pelzman asked why the policy did not encourage hearsayr and Mr. Pantaleo responded that it did, because the law encourages hearsay. Mr. Pantaleo added that the Universiq/s obligation was to act upon information it had received, and that might, by definition, be hearsay, and he referred Professor Pelzman to Page 4 of the Policy for a detailed explanation on that point. Mr. Pantaleo also pointed out that the Policy specifically provides that nothing in the Sexual Harassment Poliry and Procedures could be used to revoke a faculty membeCs right to pursue a grievance under the Faculty Code. Discussion followed by Professor Pelzman and Mr. Pantaleo. Mr. Pantaleo pointed out that the Administration proposal was very similar to the Interim Poticy in place for the past three years, and he said he thought it might not be wise to ignore three years of successful experience to. with a Policy that contained some of the same procedures that were now being obiected As it Outside Counsel for the University, Mr. Pantaleosaid, in order for the Policy to be effective, would have to be inviting, so that the Policywould mitigate damage and be a legitimate risk reduction tool for the University and individual managers who would have to deal with sexual harassment complaints. Professor Griffith asked Mr. Pantaleo to respond to the question of what happens once a party reports to a supervisory official, and that supervisory official imposes some sort of disciplinary sanction, that is, how faculty can protect their own rights in this kind of situation. He said he could certainly see, as Professor Gallo had argued, that it was reasonable from the facutty point of view that there might be an informal process in which there were not a record made. But once a faculty member has suffered an imposition which he thinks unfair, Professor Griffrth asked how a policy could be defended that would prohibit making available to the faculty member the details upon which he could mount an appeal. Mr. Pantaleo responded that the Policy specifically provides that when faculty proceed to the hearing level, faculty have access to information suflicient to formulate a response. Professor Simon asked whose iudgment that conclusion was based uPonr and Mr. Pantaleo responded that he would say it was based on experience and history, atd a iudgment based on both the University and the alleged harasser. Discussion followed by Professors Pelzman, Simon, and Mr. Pantaleo on the importance of the effectiveness of a policyvs. due process rights. [At 3:55 p.m. the meeting was adiourned because Room 403 was about to become unavailable, and the Senate reconvened in Room 310 of the Marvin Center at4zli P.mJ Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, Lpril27 r 200I Page 8 Professor Robinson moved that debate be limited until5:00 p.m., and the motion was seconded. A vote was taken, and the motion was approved. Professor Griffith said that, while he thought that the Faculty Senate's version of the policy perhaps overprotected the faculty, the administration's policy would seem to overprotect the plaintiff(victim). He said that it seemed to him that Mr. Pantaleo had not really answered the question of why concealing information from an accused faculty member would be necessary to make the harassment policy effective. Mr. Pantaleo responded that under the policy, the sexual harassment coordinator would do a preliminary consultation with a complainanq and investigate the matter. A report would be writtin to a responsible University official, which is required under both Title IX and Title YII. The responsible official would be the individual who would take disciplinary action if necessary or indicated. The real dispute, it seemed to Mr. Pantaleo, was that the Flarassment Policy does not mandate turning over of 100% of the information, but it does not preclude it either. And he added, any policy would fail no matter what its provisions if it was not consistently administered in good faith. One fact was irrefutable, he said, and that is that a policyvirtually identical to the Verner, Liipfert draft -- the Interim Sexual Harassment Policy -- has been in place for some three, almost four years, and the problems identified in Resolution 00/6 have not come to pass, and has not resulted in the wrecked careers of administrators or faculty members who were unfairly railroaded by the existing policy. Professor Banzhaf asked Mr. Pantaleo about an ongoing investigation at the University concerning remarks apparently directed in a class toward female students by a faculty member, and he said that the investigation had been going on for nearly a month. Professor Banzhaf asked Mr. Pantaleo to comment on this, as the Princeton policywhich Mr. Pantaleo commended to the University requires investigations to be completed within two weeks. Mr. Pantaleo responded that he had no knowledge of the investigation in question. Profesor Banzhaf then asked if anyone in the room could answer his question. In response, Professor Gallo said that no one could answer on behalf of the administration, and that she had been told by the Sexual flarassment Coordinator that the nature of the case to which Professor Banzhaf was referring had been misrepresented, firstly, and secondlR the case to which Professor Banzhaf was referring had not proceeded to the point where it could be discussed, and she applauded maintenance of confidentiality in this case. Professor Banzhaf then said he didn't think Mr. Pantaleo should be arguing that the Flarassment Policy was a wonderful policy if Mr. Pantaleo did not knowwhat was going on. Mr. Pantaleo responded by saylng thaithe fact that no one yet knows about the impending investigation indicated to him that things are working as they ought to, and would tend to negate Professor BanzhaPs concern that a faculty membet's career would be ruined under the Harassment Policy. Professor Duffsaid that he understood the need to protect the anon5rmity of victims, but that it seemed to him that some procedural protections for faculty present in the Faculty Senate's version of the Policy had been removed, even though these deletions, he said, did not Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, April2T ,2001 Page 9 appear to alter the effectiveness of the Policy. He asked why the passage had been removed *hi.f, provided that "the file will not be revealed or released to any University authority outside the general counsel's office nor will it be used or otherwise affect any decisions regarding promotion, tenure, compensation or other. . . .t'.'Particulatly, h. added, when there had been a consultation written up and stored in a file somewhere. if Mr. Pantaleo asked Messrs. Weitzner and Avitable (of Yerner, Liipfert) to correct him he was mistaken, but he thought the representations of confidentiality in the Policy were adequate. Mr. Avitable said that he thought there was some concern that the University might need to take into account accumulative effects of allegations that might not initially on their own have warranted a disciplinary action, and he thought that the University did not want any inference to be drawn that iust because something had previously not led to an investigation that those allegations might not in the light of subsequent events be taken into account and iustified as future investigations. Clearly, he said, with the Policy, as it is currently written, there would not be any corrective action taken without some sort of investigation and the full procedures being utilized. He said that he did not think there is any rislg as Professor Banzhaf had suggested at one point, that there might be a circumstance where someone might have some adverse action taken against him in the future and perhaps not even know that the reason for that action is a hidden file somewhere. This was not, Mr. Avitable thought, a realistic interpretation of the Policy. It would be in the Universiqt's interest, he thought that, if the University believed there was sufficient conduct to give rise to corrective action, to go through the full investigation and impose corrective action after that. Professor Duffsaid that it seemed to him that there could be more assurances given to the faculty about the confidentiality of unsubstantiated accusations, particularly if the accusations were frivolous or unfounded. He also asked Mr. Pantaleo why the vote required to find a respondent responsible for harassment had been changed from 4/5ths to a simple maiority. Mr. Pantaleo acknowledged that the composition of the panel and the voting requirements had been changed. He said it was concluded that a simple maiority rather than four out of five voting (a super maioriry), was not impossible to achieve, but was too burdensome for an effective policy. This decision had been a iudgment call, he said, because he thought that it would be extreme in a litigation setting to stand up in court and defend a policy that required four out of five people hearing a case to determine that an event had occurred. The Policy as a whole he said, went as far as it could reasonably go if the goal was to keep faculty, students, and the University out of court. In its totalityr he said, the Policy has a very simple function vindication of the civil rights of students and staffby means of an -the internal mechanism that falls short of deploying the full force and violence of the govemment. Professor Simon said he did not see how a faculty member could be charged under the Policy and not know the details of the accusation. Mr. Avitable responded that faculty members Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes, April 27r200l Page 10 were entitled to an allegation, and sufficient information to formulate a response. Professor Simon said he thought the first goal was to protect the University, and then, the faculty, and he asked why this was different than other legal matters. Messrs. Avitable and Pantaleo both said that it was because the Supreme Court had confirmed the necessity of this, as it said an institution would be strictly liable if it didn't have a policy. Mr. Pantaleo then said he hoped that the Senate would frnd the Verner, Liipfert draft policy as compelling as the Interim Policy now in place. Professor Wilmarth noted the presence of ProfessorsJohn Banzhaf, David Robinson, and Michael Selmi, all of the Law School, and offered them the privilege of the floor for comments. Professor Banzhaf rcminded the Senate that he had sent Yemer, Liipfert a series of very specific questions based upon the letter Verner, Liipfert had given to the Senate at the very last minute, and he had asked for a response which he had shared with all Senate members. The response, he said, was not responsive, and the list of cases, almost all of which were not university cases, also was not responsive. None of those cases, he said, stood for the proposition that the University was required not to grant a hearing in sexual harassment cases. Another lawyeds trickwhich he had observed, he said, was similar to Perry Mason pulling something out of his briefcase in the last few moments, in that Verner, Liipfert had served the Senate two weeks ago with alarge document, at the very last minute, and so there was no chance to debate the changes therein. As it turned out, these changes did not amount to very much, he said. Professor Banzllraf pointed out that trnro weeks ago the Senate was told that the proposed Policy was in the mainstream, and Princeton and Stanford were cited as examples. Professor Banzhaf said he had examined and analyzed both institution's policies, and both were very different from GW's proposed policy. Then suddenly, he said, five new university policies were held up for comparison, and the Senate was asked to trust Outside Counsel's representations about them. Princeton and Stanford were suddenly forgotten. In fact, Professor Banzhaf said, he had received two calls from maior organizations saying that they thought GW,s proposed policywas worse than Columbia Universiqfs, which poticywas at the bottom rung of policies nationwide. Professor McAleavey asked if the Senate could know the names of the organizations to which Professor Banzhaf rcferred, and Professor Banzhaf responded that the information was grven him in confidence, so he could not divulge it. Professor Banzhaf continued by sayrng that he thought that it was somewhat ironic that GW University, which has iust gone to court claiming violation of its First Amendment rights, due process rights, and infringement of academic freedom in a zoning matter, would impose these same burdens upon its own faculty in the form of the proposed harassment policy. By law, he said , the University could do what it wished, but if the Senate rejected the proposed policy and sent it back in favor of a new policy which was truly in the mainstream, then, he said, the faculty would protect itself Professor Banzhaf then volunteered to analyze the policies of the five