By Saleem W. Khan
The administrator of Ryerson’s Harassment Prevention Office can’t understand why no one is attending public consultations on the school’s revised harassment policy.
“It may be that there hasn’t been a whole lot of controversy or a whole lot of concern about the harassment policy in the last couple of years,” said office coordinator Wendy Roberts, referring to a 1990 complaint against The Ryersonian for an article a student felt was homophobic. “There could be a number of explanations.”
The consultations were scheduled so students, staff and faculty could have input in the draft policy process. But at the three meetings so far, only four people attended: a journalist, two students doing a project on Harassment Prevention Office itself, and a former co-chair of the review committee that drafted the policy.
“I don’t know if people aren’t interested (in the harassment policy) or if they’re just so busy with school and other things,” says Antonella Ceddia, the office’s formal complaints investigator and a former employe of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. “But we have advertised. We put up a lot of posters and we advertised in the school paper.”
Last semester Tracy Daoust completed a study showing how the Harassment Prevention Office could increase its profile and reach out to those who need to use its services. The fourth-year business student believes one reason for the low turnout at the consultations is lack of concern on the part of Ryerson students.
“People don’t want to think that they are ever going to have to use the service, so why would they be concerned about their policies?” Daoust said.
“There are lots of meetings going on at our school. People aren’t going to go (to a consultation meeting) if they don’t understand the importance of it.
The policy is scheduled to go to the Board of Governors for approval in March, but Ceddia said with all the work left to do, the office will probably present the policy to the Board of Governors in April.
The main difference between the revised draft and the new policy are the changes in terminology. The draft policy refers to “discrimination and harassment” wherever the current policy mentions “harassment,” and discrimination has been divided into two categories: direct and systemic. Direct discrimination occurs on a one on one basis, while systemic discrimination results from seemingly neutral institutional policies and practices.
If the policy is accepted by the Board of Governors, the office’s name will be changed to the Office of Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Services.
Ceddia says that unlike the Ontario Human Rights Code, the revisions will not include a “zero tolerance” provision.
“(Ryerson’s) policy is based on progressive discipline, so that the penalty if somebody is found to have harassed is going to fit how serious the harassment was.”
Ceddia says when Harassment Prevention Services was considering what Ryerson’s approach to penalties would be, they felt zero tolerance was not a “fair way” to penalize people. “It doesn’t allow for education and prevention,” she said.
Ceddia feels that the draft policy as written is good, but “it’s probably not perfect…that’s why it’s out for consultation.”
“We want to hear what other people have to say,” she said, adding any feedback from the Ryerson community will probably result in an improved policy.
The office has received several letters and telephone calls from students and faculty expressing views on the revised policy. Tuesday’s consultation meeting was the last one scheduled by Harassment Prevention Services, and Ceddia says that they do not plan to hold any more. “We’ll just go along with the feedback we do receive,” she said.
Leave a Reply