As black student leaders, we bear witness to the hostile environment in which students of… As black student leaders, we bear witness to the hostile environment in which students of color must endure in order to gain a so-called “good education.” Within the past two years alone, black students have been subjected to racist Web sites against us, the use of police dogs on us, and most recently, an insult on our civil rights when a noose was placed on a black professor’s desk. In response to protests of such abhorred conditions, student activism has been met with verbal intimidation, as well as the concealment and outright falsification of vital information by administrators, with the goal of suppressing the voices of those who call for fundamental change in the policies regarding black student life. The administration’s callous disregard for the quality of black student life can be clearly demonstrated through its behavior surrounding the Black Action Society and Student Government Board’s racial profiling campaign.

I realize these might seem like strong charges, so I provide the following historical background so as not to be perceived as the misguided protagonist of an imagined dilemma. On April 24, 2001, then-Vice Provost Jack L. Daniel sent a memo to the working group on racial profiling, of which I was a part, outlining the agreed-upon steps that would be taken to help make Resolution No. 0001 a success. Here I will quote directly from that memo, with my comments following each step in italics.

Members of the working group on Racial Profiling met April 19, 2001, to reach as much closure as possible on the 10 points. What follows this is the agreed-upon courses of action for each of the following points:

1. A system of data collection. Mr. Delaney, Pitt police chief, was asked to present a three- to five-page document indicating (1) the purpose(s) for conducting analysis, (2) the specific question to be asked, (3) the specific data to be analyzed, (4) how the results will be presented, and (5) how the results will be disseminated.

This document was never presented to the working group. Now the administration claims to have a system and a procedure for analyzing the data. The working group never agreed upon this “system” nor has any student member of the working group ever seen this data. If they have such data and studies then the information should be released.

2. Distribution of the officer’s information and the student’s rights. It was agreed upon that if an officer initiates contact with someone and asks for identification, that officer is to provide his or her identification card. It was also agreed that, at the next printing, the cards would be revised to include another referral source, should the person being interrogated wish to contact another office of the University besides the police.

The administration claims the distribution of cards was to be “upon request.” This is clearly false as is stated in the memo from Dr. Daniel. Administrators claimed that only the police chief’s name was to be added. Again clearly false, they continue their refusal to provide students with the vital information needed to ensure their safety.

3. Diversity training. In the March 27 meeting, Sara Dadlani was asked to provide the name of a contact person from the student coalition, as well as to identify a group of students by organization and position who could provide a briefing regarding the current diversity training for officers. At that time, students could also provide feedback regarding the existing training program.

While Sara Dadlani provided the names requested, the administration never held a briefing for that group nor did they allow for student input regarding the existing training programs.

4. Link minority students with Pitt police. A subcommittee comprising Student Government, Black Action Society, and other student of color organizations should meet to develop an agenda for discussion with the safety and security personnel once a year or as often as needed.

No such subcommittee exists. Further, when the Black Action Society addressed the chancellor regarding issues of safety, he responded to SGB President Kevin Washo Jr., choosing not to respond to black student leadership directly. President Washo had little knowledge of the issues of which the Black Action Society was inquiring.

5. Hold town meetings each semester. Beginning the first or second week in October 2001, and around the same time in February 2002, town hall meetings will be held.

At the forum on campus safety, the memo from Dr. Daniel was brought up as well as the broken promises. At that point the administration refused to comment on the issue anymore other than to say, “Of course racial profiling exists.”

6. Distribute pamphlets to inform students of their rights when interacting with police. It was agreed that the flier, “What To Do If You’ve Been Stopped By The Police,” which was developed by SGB and the United States Student Association, will be reviewed, revised, and included as a detachable insert in the Police Department’s “For Safety Sake” brochure. (This information comes from a separate memo dated March 27, 2001, from then-assistant to the vice provost, Birney M. Harrigan, to the Working Group on Racial Profiling.)

After agreeing to provide the student body with such vital information the administration now not only refuses to do what it promised but acts as if their “For Safety Sake” brochure is what was agreed to and not the insert from SGB and USSA.

7. Pitt police sign a guarantee of service and integrity.

The police have this in place.

8. Publish and distribute a statement by the Pitt police regarding racial profiling. Provost Maher addressed this issue in his letter to The Pitt News.

Letter was completed.

9. Work closely with minority organizations in all steps toward ending racial profiling.

See the response to item four above.

10. All information regarding racial profiling should be public and accessible to University students.

See the response to item one above. The University has refused to release data collected from a study it that began in April 2001 regarding racial profiling.

As a result of such neglect on the part of administrators regarding racial profiling and other student of color issues, Pitt was rated the 11th worst, out of 331 universities, for racial and social-class interaction by the Princeton Review in 2002. This environment is one that prevents students of color from having an equal college experience. When you are treated like a criminal or constantly questioned as to your status as a student; when all your events require the police and metal detectors, but others have the same type of events and the same police presence isn’t required; when you have seen your friends threatened and bitten by a police dog, would you feel safe (from the police)?

While the difficulties for students of color, and black students in particular, extend far beyond that of racial profiling, how can the student body possibly trust the administration to give serious attention to these problems when they won’t even do what they promised in writing? Now, the administration says that a fair reading of a point-by-point analysis should lead us to conclude that they took the discussion very seriously and agreed to a rather comprehensive set of responses. I would like everyone to know what the administration truly agreed to and what has been done. Then, you decide if they take the issues and concerns of students of color and black student life seriously.

Jay Dworin

2001 Political Action Chair, BAS

2001 SGB member

Copies of the April 24, 2001, memo will be made available to the Black Action Society and through the University of Pittsburgh chapter of SANKOFA for distribution to all interested.