Compromise the only fair, possible way to enact agreement

Dear Editor:

In the spring term of 2001, Student Government Board passed a resolution… Dear Editor:

In the spring term of 2001, Student Government Board passed a resolution opposing racial profiling and urging the University to adopt a 10-point program that it asserted would be an appropriate institutional response to prevent such profiling. At that time, one of us (Provost James V. Maher) replied with a letter that strongly condemned racial profiling and expressed general sympathy for much of the spirit of the 10-point program, but cautioned that some of the points required further clarification and discussion before any agreement could be reached on their substance.

To pursue that clarification and discussion, the provost, after consulting the chancellor, convened a working group led by Vice Provost Jack L. Daniel. That group included members of the administration and members of the student body, and met several times in the ensuing weeks. Those discussions showed that some of the 10 points of the SGB resolution had already been implemented as University policy before the resolution was passed, that others were agreeable to all parties, and that some were not agreeable to all parties without some degree of modification. As we understand them, the results of those discussions, numbered according to the listing in the SGB resolution, were:

1. A system of data collection. The University police department has such a system and a procedure for analyzing the data.

2. Distribution of the officer’s information and the student’s rights. It was concluded that, upon request, officers who initiate contact with individuals will provide a business card with contact information about the Pitt chief of police on the back. Officers will follow this practice.

3. Diversity training. Diversity training is conducted annually for all commissioned officers, and this practice will continue.

4. Link minority students with Pitt police. Regular outreach efforts will continue. Additionally, a committee, convened by Vice Provost Daniel, representing student government, the Black Action Society, and other student organizations should meet to develop an agenda for discussion with safety and security personnel at least once a year.

5. Hold town meetings each semester. As part of an ongoing commitment to meet with students, a Student Leadership Forum on Intolerance and a Student Leadership Forum on Campus Safety have been held recently. At both of these meetings, the issue of profiling has been raised and discussed. These meetings are convened by the vice provost of undergraduate studies and dean of students on behalf of the Office of the Provost and student government, with the police department and the public safety department as invited participants.

6. Distribute pamphlets to inform students of their rights when interacting with police. The University police Web site (http://www.pitt.edu/~police/) includes information on the professional conduct standards to which officers are held and information on how to file a complaint or compliment; we will encourage Student Affairs and Student Government Board to set up links from their web page to this police site so that students may more easily find this information. The University annually provides students and employees with “For Safety’s Sake,” an update on safety and security on the Pitt campus.

7. Pitt police sign a guarantee of service and integrity. We have and will continue to implement this.

8. Publish and distribute a statement by the Pitt police regarding racial profiling. This was immediately accomplished through the letter one of us (Maher) published in The Pitt News shortly after the SGB resolution was originally passed. That letter stated, “Please know that I object, in the most strenuous terms, not only to racial profiling, but also to any other adverse actions based on religion, ethnicity, and gender. Indeed, all of my senior colleagues are opposed to adverse actions such as racial, religious, ethnic, and gender profiling. Moreover, we are proactively addressing issues that will permit our campus to be inclusive and civil in nature.” This message has been reaffirmed in the chancellor’s recent letter to SGB president Kevin Washo Jr. and remains University policy.

9. Work closely with minority organizations in all steps toward ending racial profiling. See the response to item No. 4 above.

10. All information regarding racial profiling should be public and accessible to University students. Crime and arrest statistics are maintained and reviewed by senior administrators. All charges of adverse stereotypical actions by University employees in violation of the University’s ongoing anti-profiling position are investigated, and if the charges are found to have substance, strong disciplinary action will be taken. The University is willing to disclose the number of student arrests and the percentage of those arrests that involve African-Americans It would not be appropriate, whether charges are found to be unfounded or strong disciplinary actions are taken, to make public the details of individual employment decisions.

While it is perhaps understandable that some of the protagonists to the discussion held in Vice Provost Daniel’s working group would be disappointed that some aspects of the original 10-point proposal had to be modified in order to provide for an appropriate implementation, a fair reading of the point-by-point analysis above should lead the reader to conclude that the administration took the discussion very seriously and agreed to a rather comprehensive set of responses.

More of the recent statements by various protagonists can be understood if one assumes that they are using the term “racial profiling” to embrace all the forms of racial stereotyping that unfortunately continue to occur in our society. Used in the standard way, the term “racial profiling” would mean that the University police had an institutional policy of acting on the basis of racial stereotyping. Quite the contrary, this institution (and its police department) has a policy that forbids actions motivated by racial stereotypes, a stance that commits us to work actively to discourage actions by any of our employees on the basis of any racial stereotyping they may bring from their own backgrounds and convictions. We intend to continue to work to identify and combat any deleterious effects of racial stereotyping by members of the University community, and we call on all members of the community to work with us in this important endeavor. The responses to the 10 points offered above can provide a sound basis for that endeavor.

Jerome Cochran

Executive Chancellor

James V. Maher

Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor