Apparently under pressure of a lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, Penn State has “has revised its policies on nondiscrimination and intolerance to clarify what constitutes harassment and protected speech on its campuses.” (Penn State, however, denied that it acted in response to the lawsuit.)
David French, an attorney with the Alliance, praised the changes. To Penn State’s credit, he said, “they’ve shown that you can protect free speech at the same time you prohibit real harassment.”
The change does seem to be a big improvement, but I’m particularly interested in how the new policy defines “discrimination” and “intolerance.”
DEFINITIONS:
Discrimination is conduct of any nature that violates the policy set forth above by denying equal privileges or treatment to a particular individual because of the individual’s age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or veteran status.
….
An act of intolerance refers to conduct that is in violation of a University policy, rule or regulation and is motivated by discriminatory bias against or hatred toward other individuals or groups based on characteristics such as age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, political belief, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or veteran status.
I don’t know whether or not Penn State extends racial preferences to selected minorities in its admissions or hiring practices, but if it does those preferences would seem to fall squarely within its own definitions of both “discrimination” and “intolerance.”
