Blame the lack of training in diversity issues. Blame the ignorance. Whatever you choose to fault for the recent anti-homosexual attitudes on campus, there is one source of blame that has gone unrecognized—the University of La Verne administration.
At the open forum held April 12 in response to the altercation at Nick’s Place involving ULV students, La Fetra Auditorium was filled with students, staff, faculty and administrators.
“When you start taking responsibility for students off campus, you open up a legal Pandora’s Box.”
This was the response of Dr. Loretta Rahmani, dean of student affairs, to why no action “could” be taken against any party in the altercation.
This made sense to some, and left others angry at the lack of action taken by the University.
Each time a student stood up and expressed his or her outrage, Dr. Rahmani claimed that there was no existing policy regarding an altercation involving students that took place off campus.
President Stephen Morgan was later quoted as agreeing with Dr. Rahmani.
“If you take on the responsibility for disciplining students off campus, you then take on a greater responsibility for their behavior, and, in today’s litigious society, you can be held responsible for that behavior,” said Dr. Morgan.
This response also supports Dr. Rahmani’s “there-is-nothing-we-can-do-about-it” attitude.
Well, there is something the University can do about it.
Students and faculty, let me introduce you to a little book entitled, “The Disciplinary Process at the University of La Verne.”
It is a 12-page pamphlet with a beige cover and it describes in great detail ULV policies toward students, beginning with the judicial process and ending in University policies.
Lo and behold, on page 10 of the informative pamphlet, there is a policy on “Physical/Verbal Abuse and Harassment.”
The policy, published last fall by the Student Affairs Office, states that, “Physical abuse, or threat thereof, is not permitted on or off campus property to members of the University of La Verne community.”
This policy is not only in existence, it also clearly states that the University will take action in an “off campus” situation.
Why were administrators in denial of the policy? Was it because once a situation really took place, they could not handle it?
Whatever the reason may be, the administration clearly lied to the University community. Did it really believe there would not be one student or faculty member ingenious enough to dig up this policy that has been swept under the rug?
The policy goes on to say, ”As well, abusive behavior directed toward, or hazing of, a member of the campus community is not allowed. This includes threats, malicious pranks, abusive name-calling, and racial, sexual, or homosexual harassment.”
The policy is even precise enough to list the various types of harassment that fall under this policy.
Perhaps, the administrators discovered that the policy was just too clear-cut and they could not possibly be responsible for a student voicing a racial epithet on D Street, but they should have stated this rather than denying that a policy existed.
The administrators could have boldly stated that the policy is in need of revision rather than lying outright.
Instead, the administrators continue to claim that there is no policy, and that they are investigating everything. They are looking into the homosexual graffiti, they are looking into the altercation. That is fine, but when is the University going to ‘fess up that they do have a role in off campus altercations? After all, the policy has been discovered, and they can no longer claim one does not even exist.
