Forum leads to profiling debate

An open forum on campus safety became a debate between students and Vice Provost for… An open forum on campus safety became a debate between students and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and Dean of Students Jack Daniel Monday night about a plan that students and Daniel agreed upon to fight racial profiling.

In 2001, Student Government Board passed a resolution to fight racial profiling on campus, leading to a 10-point plan focusing on police. Executive Vice Chancellor Jerome Cochran overturned some of the points, former SGB member Jay Dworin said.

Cochran acted in “bad faith” and “misled students” by allowing the meetings to go on and knowing Daniel did not have the authority to enforce these agreements, Dworin said.

According to Dworin, Cochran overturned demands from students to make police data concerning race public and for students’ rights to be printed on the back of police business cards.

Upon request, officers must give students a business card and if the officers do not have one at the time they must provide students with their name and badge number, according to Pitt police Commander Kathy Schrieber. But SGB’s Andrea DeChellis said police do not always give out cards when asked.

Dworin said that “Dr. Daniel did a really nice job” in helping create the 10-point plan, but he later questioned Daniel and other administrators’ lack of action after Cochran overturned some of the agreements.

“Is there a reason why no one stepped up and asked why?” he said.

Many in the audience booed when Daniel responded to Dworin’s question with, “I think we should move on.”

Pitt student Erika Strauss said at the forum, “I feel that the panelists are very defensive. I’m really disappointed that Jay’s question wasn’t answered.”

SGB member La’Tasha Mayes asked the panel, “Can you look at me as a person and tell me that racial racial profiling does not exist on this campus?”

“I truly implore you to listen to us,” she said.

Daniel said that, when he made the agreements, he acted in “good faith.” After making the agreements, he was informed he did not have jurisdiction over enforcing these policies, he said.

The 10-point plan focuses on profiling by police, but Daniel said other forms of racial profiling exist.

” Of course, racial profiling takes place at Pitt, as well as any other university,” he said. “I have been profiled at Pitt.”

At a University dinner event, his wife and children sat down at a table reserved for Daniel. A white person, unfamiliar with Daniel, told them they could not sit there because it was reserved for the vice provost, he said.

“The people could not understand that I could be the vice provost [because I was black],” he said.

Daniel said that while racial profiling may go on at Pitt, it is not done by Pitt police.

Daniel agreed that he “does not have documented evidence of Pitt police engaging in racial profiling,” but added that he has “heard many allegations.”

“We made the agreements knowing that there is racial profiling. I know it. You know it,” he said.

Daniel asked Dworin to talk to him privately about these issues.

Dworin asked Daniel again, “Will you have our back?” asking if Daniel would support students in requests to the administration for changes.

Daniel did not respond, but he said he would lead a 500-man march on campus. He suggested a march in response to a fight at the William Pitt Union Oct. 18, which was attended predominantly by black students. The march would promote positive action by black men, he said.

The WPU fight led to allegations of inappropriate conduct by Pitt and city police. City police brought dogs to break up the fight, but Daniel made it clear that Pitt police do not have dogs.

Courtney Richardson, president of the Native American Student Organization, said of the fight, “It was the first time I feared for my life.”

“The front doors had been barricaded prior to the event, so everyone tried to get out through the handicap exit, she said, adding that there was a “danger of people being trampled.”

Schreiber could not comment further because the case is still under investigation.

Pitt police signed a code of ethics agreeing to provide fairness and justice to everyone, she said. Pitt police also undergo 12 hours of ethics and diversity training each year, she said.

Richardson said the police should issue a public statement as well.

SGB member Andrew Hutelmyer said, “No one knows what the administration is doing.”

He suggested the administration send a letter to SGB informing members of actions being taken to stop students from thinking the administration is “apathetic to the issues.”

Daniel said the forum helped fill an “information gap” between students and administration. Students may not know action is being taken, but administrators are addressing students’ concerns, he said.

“If it were up to me, I would find a way to present the evidence to my constituents in a way that they would deem credible,” he said, but added that he wouldn’t make Pitt police statistics public information for privacy reasons.

Daniel also urged students to talk to those with the authority to change policies, such as Cochran, about more documentation of racial profiling at Pitt.

News editor Greg Heller-LaBelle and assistant news editor Lauren Unger contributed to this report.