The University is taking steps to make its interim sexual harassment policy permanent by the end of the academic year.

Donald Lehman, executive vice president for academic affairs, put together a committee of students and staff on Feb. 21 to create a permanent policy for the University. The interim policy, which the Faculty Senate last revised in April 1999, has a broad definition for sexual harassment including “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

The committee hopes to clarify issues in the interim policy, such as the procedure for notifying involved parties, defining sexually sensitive subjects in class discussions and determining whether accusations can be kept confidential.

Faculty Senate Chair Arthur Wilmarth said the Faculty Senate would only be able to support a policy that gave “proper notice and a full hearing” before sanctions are dealt to faculty. Possible sanctions for sexual harassment include an oral warning, suspension, tenure revocation and termination.

Professors should also be protected against harassment complaints based on sexually sensitive topics discussed in class, Wilmarth said.

“Classroom discussion should be frozen,” Wilmarth said. “If there was a discussion of innuendo in literature, rape in law and other sensitive issues that need to be discussed, if reasonable discussions could be attacked because someone thought they were offensive then those areas should be off limits.”

Confidentiality of complaint records has also been discussed in the past, Lehman said. Some faculty members believe they should have access to the identity of the accuser and the nature of the complaint.

Under the interim policy, accusers can choose to have a confidential consultation with a University-designated coordinator and their identities and consultations will be kept confidential. The University or the accuser can request to pursue an informal complaint, in which the coordinator carries out an investigation. Confidentiality is not ensured when pursuing an informal complaint.

“It was unacceptable to faculty to have confidential reporting,” Lehman said.

He added that faculty members are against denying hearings before sanctions are given because they are “a part of due process.”

The committee hopes to recommend a policy that will be put before the Board of Trustees for approval by the end of the academic year, said Susan Kaplan, associate vice president for human resources. Kaplan said that a policy would be successful “as long as the policy is compliant with the law and conducive with an academic environment.”

Kaplan said the number of complaints in past years has been “closer to 15 than 50” and that “the allegations that have been brought forward have been handled consistent with the interim policy.”

Psychology Department chair Elliot Hirshman and Museum Studies chair Ildiko P. DeAngelis head the committee of faculty, four staff members and two students.

Both Hirshman and DeAngelis declined to comment on specific changes to the policy, as well as the work the committee has done thus far.

“It is way too early to talk about the work of the committee. We have had only two meetings to date. As a group, the committee will report to you or to any other member of the University community later in the process,” DeAngelis wrote in an e-mail.

Lehman believes the proposal will be successful and a permanent policy will be put in place by the end of the year.

“I am optimistic,” he said, “because we’ve had ample opportunities to work through key issues for a policy for the entire University.”