Switch in harassment policy endorsed

Thursday, Feb. 12, 1998 | 10:24 a.m.

The Clark County School District's Policy Committee took a sharp turn when it approved an anti-harassment statement suggested by the conservative Nevada Concerned Citizens over one wanted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The language of the policy has been batted about for the past two months, with those on one side of the controversy wanting a broad, general statement that excludes all forms of harassment without being specific while those on the other side want a statement that identifies specific forms of harassment.

The district's Policy Committee voted Tuesday night to adopt the simple statement that "harassment will not be tolerated, regardless of its basis."

The statement was one suggested to the Policy Committee at its last meeting by Kris Jensen, president of Nevada Concerned Citizens, which has actively opposed gay and lesbian issues in the past.

About 30 members of the gay and lesbian community, many of them students, who attended the meeting were surprised and elated when the Policy Committee seemed to agree upon a statement worked out by the ACLU of Nevada and the attorney for the school district.

They had attended the meeting in anticipation of presenting arguments to the committee but ended up praising its members for their apparent decision.

That policy statement said: "While harassment of any type is strictly prohibited regardless of the basis of such conduct, acts based upon someone's race, gender, appearance, ethnicity, sexual orientation, place of national origin or handicap are the types most commonly encountered.

"These as well as any other varieties of harassing behavior have no place in the school setting and will not be tolerated within the Clark County School District."

The committee's decision came as a shock to many of those in the audience who thought the harassment language issue had been settled.

But even though the committee adopted the shorter language, the full board could change it back to the earlier version.

School Board member Mary Beth Scow, who also is on the Policy Committee, said the new version will be presented to the board at its Feb. 26 meeting, but even then it may not be finalized.

"It must go back to the board twice," she said.

Scow defended the committee's decision to change the language.

"Our feeling was we wanted it to be all inclusive. It doesn't exclude anyone," she said.

She said the decision was not intended to be a slam against gays and lesbians.

But Gary Peck, local ACLU director, has a different opinion.

He believes the change was the result of lobbying by conservatives who oppose gay and lesbian rights.

He and attorney Allen Lichtenstein, who is in private practice and also helps Peck on various issues, say the new version of the harassment policy is watered down. They will attempt to convince the school board the earlier version is the one that needs to be adopted.

"The language we worked so long and hard on, which in many ways tracks the language in other harassment policies around the country -- but was an improvement in significant regards -- was changed at the last minute by the Policy Committee after much testimony in support of the proposed policy," Peck said.

He said he was disturbed by the fact that so many spoke out in favor of the policy while only a few opposed it.

"Two or three people spoke out in opposition in a disingenuous and dishonest way by not saying what their agenda was, which was to eliminate sexual orientation from the list of protected categories," Peck said. "The Policy Committee essentially caved in.

"They lacked courage and lacked principle and lacked vision and they were misguided and misdirected because the result will be a policy not as effective as it might otherwise be and won't send a strong message to students and staff."

He said a "small, vocal minority got its way despite the fact that the result is a policy that ... will not provide the kind of protection for students the school board and the district claim they are seeking."

Lichtenstein said it is unfortunate the change in language is perceived as a gay issue.

"While the concern is very real and very important, any student who is harassed for any reason feels the same pain," he said. "The fact is that there are many students being harassed on variety of issues.

"What happened Tuesday was a step backwards. The Policy Committee seemed more involved with avoiding controversy than addressing the issue head on."

While the new, shorter language is not a green light to harass gay and lesbian students, Lichtenstein said, neither is it a red light.

"It certainly is not as strong a protection as need be, nor is it an explicit statement," he said. "It is not the kind of necessary explicit statement that says, without pulling punches, you can not harass other students based on their sexual orientation, as you cannot based on race, sex or physical appearance."

He and Peck say to be effective the policy must walk a narrow line, sending a strong and clear message that certain kinds of behaviors are intolerable.

"(Our version of the policy statement) makes it very clear," Peck said. "It is inclusive but not limited.

"It is also important to realize that while any basis for harassment is objectionable, there is really harassment going on, especially in these areas. We owe it to these students to make it very clear these common types of harassment are absolutely unacceptable."

Lichtenstein said it will be a challenge to the school board to show they are genuinely interested "in developing and implementing a truly effective and truly inclusive policy and not simply interested in avoiding controversy by not mentioning certain areas of harassment that are not just potential harassment but are in fact commonplace. Then they will adopt language that gives meaningful guidance to people charged with enforcing their policy."