Inside:
Madness and
Mayhem Color
As You Like It
— see page 15
Student Sexual Harassment Policy Implemented
By TINA WELSH
Loyolait Editor-In-Chief
Sexual harassment is a very sensitive
issue. Unlike crimes of theft, its vic¬
tims feel reluctant — and often humiliated
— about reporting the incident. Accor¬
ding to recent nationwide statistics, occur¬
rences of sexual harassment are increasing
on college campuses across the country.
The primary targets — students — face
several discomfiting questions, the most
frequent of which is: who can I go to for
help?
Recognizing the magnitude of sud^ a
widespread problem, the Committee on
the Status of Women has been working on
a sexual harassment policy for LMU
students over the last three-and-a-half
years (one currently exists for faculty and
staff). This semester, the policy will finally
be actualized, once it is ratified by the
Board of Trustees.
“It’s a very significant step for LMU,”
said committee chairwoman Maxine
Junge, a clinical art therapist. “It’s the
first time that we are saying — as a univer¬
sity — ‘we are against the sexual harass¬
ment of our students. ’ ”
Dr. Henry F. Durand, vice president of
student affairs, said that the policy is “dif¬
ferent’ ’ because it is geared toward protec¬
ting the rights of students. “We haven’t
had a clear procedure for students regar¬
ding sexual harassment,” he stated.
“There was no known way to address the
problem until now.”
Because of its delicate and often am¬
biguous nature, most people are unaware
of exactly what constitutes sexual harass¬
ment. The new policy elucidates this point
with a clear definition of the crime:
“Unwelcome sexual advances, re¬
quests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature
constitutes sexual harassment when:
(1)Submission to or rejection of
such conduct by a student is used
as a term or condition of the
student’s status in a course,
program or activity of this
University.
(2)Submission to or rejection of
such conduct is used as a basis for
academic or other decisions
affecting such students; or
(3)Such conduct has the purpose or
effect of unreasonably interfering
with a student’s educational
experience or creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive
university environment.’ ’
Perhaps the most significant issue the
policy addresses is what options students
have once they feel they have been harass¬
ed.
“The main concern is secrecy,” said
Junge. “We want students to know that
confidentiality is key.”
The first step for students who think
their rights have been violated is to ap¬
proach one of two appointed mediators:
speech professor Patricia Oliver and
political science professor Dr. Bill Fitz¬
gerald. The student (graduate or
undergraduate) — referred to as the com¬
plainant — discusses the incident in an in¬
formal talk session, and further action is
decided upon during this discussion. The
complainant then has two choices: he/ she
can meet with the respondant (the accus¬
ed) with the mediator present, or the stu¬
dent can ask the mediator to meet alone
with the respondant.
Z “The idea is to clear things up between
the complainant and the respondant dur¬
ing these informal mediation sessions,”
said Junge. “But if the student feels un¬
comfortable, he or she does not necessari-
(continued on page 16)
“It’s a very significant step for LMU.. .It’s the
first time that we are saying — as a university
— ‘we are against the sexual harassment of
our students.’
Щ
Library Commission Inspires Key Improvements
By GINA A. MANCHA
Loyolan News Assign. Editor
£ 6
Ж
n any reputable university such
Xas Loyola Marymount, the cam¬
pus library should be a source of
research and study materials, adequate
to the needs of the university. As well,
the library should be an area of quiet
study for students and faculty. Because
of growing concern that neither of these
functions is being adequately served by
the Charles Von der Ahe Library, the
Student Commission on the Library was
organized.”
Such were the opening statements of
the now completed Student Library
Commission Report on the Charles Von
der Ahe Library. According to the
report, the 5-member commission (ap¬
pointed by ASLMU President Chris
Silva last fall) consisting of students
from various colleges within the univer¬
sity — John F. Cannon, Chairman,
Michael J. Brian, Geri Segal, Noreen
Sullivan, and Len Diaz — sought to
“provide a clear outline of the library’s
inadequacies, as well as possible solu¬
tions which will aid in fulfilling the
library’s potential as a functional unit in
the academic goals of the university.”
The commission did a great deal of in¬
vestigation and gathered information
from a questionnaire soliciting the
students’ opinions on the library’s per¬
formance, a series of meetings with the
Head Librarian, Betty Blackman, com¬
munications with various faculty and
administrative members, and a review of
the Evans report on the Charles Von der
Ahe Library.
It was judged that the library’s main
problems had to do with insufficient
reference materials, the ineffective con¬
version process of library materials from
the Dewey Decimal System to the
Library of Congress classification
system, a noisy, disruptive library at¬
mosphere, and a need for «tended
John Cannon, Chairman of the Student
his report.
library hours.
According to the Commission, their
questionnaire showed that the majority
of students are dissatisfied with the
amount of reference materials found in
the library. It seems that die library’s
collection of books and periodicals is
not quite up to par largely because of an
inadequate 5-year budget allocation
made in 1979.
According to the Commission, the
Evans report— which was primarily used
to identify chronic library pro¬
blems— stated that the Charles Von der
Ahe Library book collection was at a
1950’s level and that in order to catch
up, a supplemental budget of $150,000
per year, for five years, would be
necessary. However, only $50, BOO per
year over a four-year period was
granted. Therefore, the Commission
stressed that, “the book collection has
been updated to some extent, but still re¬
quires additional funds in order to be
Library Conmission, works diligently on
updated properly.”
The conversion process of library
materials is presently being handled by a
staff too small to get the job done quick¬
ly. It would take approximately 15 years
for the library staff to reclassify the re¬
maining book titles, and thus, the com¬
mission emphasizes the fact that, “this
unhurried pace only prolongs the confu¬
sion created by the presence of two
classifications, systems in one library.
Faculty have stressed that the process is
a hindrance to research. Students also
encounter difficulties when using two
different card catalogs... the reclassifica¬
tion/conversion process... must be ex¬
pedited.”
The Commission’s questionnaire
revealed that the majority of
undergraduate students believe the
library is not conducive to study because
of the high noise factor created by
students who use the library as a place to
socialize. As a long-range solution, the
Commission suggested that a student
union, where students can gather and
talk, be established.
On a more immediate scale, they sug¬
gested:
—the rearrangement of furniture
(breaking up large groups of tables,
which often promote conversation);
—adding more study carrels around the
edges of the building so that students
could study in seclusion;
—strict enforcement of silence by the
library staff;
— the opening up of more oral study
rooms 'and as another long-range goal,
making them soundproof so that discus¬
sions inside do not disturb the students
studving outside);
— directing fraternities and sororities to
alternative locations for study so that
they will not organize group excursions
to the library (which often become
disruptive social gatherings, rather than
quiet study groups);
— changing the library tour system
which creates too much noise;
— eliminating classes in the library
(which also cause too much traffic and
noise), or, if this is not possible, opening
up an alternative entrance/exit.
Concerning the library’s hours, the
Commission’s investigative report
reveals that students are not satisfied
with the present time schedule and that
the library hours do not parallel the
study habits of the majority of LMU
students. The library cannot afford the
larger full-time staff that would be need¬
ed to run the library if hours were great¬
ly extended. The Commission,
therefore, suggested “a modest increase
(five hours per week) in open library
hours, in conjunction with the rear¬
rangement of weekend hours which will
more accurately conform to current stu¬
dent needs”.
The proposed hours are:
(con tinued on page
11/
