An ongoing investigation into the controversial, anonymous student blog SUCOLitis raised questions about the definition of harassment after a first-year student filed a harassment complaint with the Syracuse University College of Law more than a week ago.

As a private university, SU has its own policies regarding free speech, meaning the university does not have to uphold the First Amendment. But on Monday, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education addressed a letter to SU Chancellor Nancy Cantor, saying the organization was deeply concerned about the threat to freedom of expression, to which the law school’s investigation has led. Len Audaer is the only student accused of writing the blog and the only student under investigation by the school.

‘Since no harassment has occurred, either by law or by Syracuse’s own policies, the investigation of Audaer or any other potential author of the blog cannot be understood as any more than a politically motivated witch hunt,’ Adam Kissel, FIRE’s vice president of programs, said in the letter.

Kissel would like Chancellor Cantor to respond to his organization’s letter by Nov. 12, he said. Kissel also said, in the letter, FIRE is ‘committed to using all of our resources to see this situation through to a just and moral decision’ and that SU should correct its error and drop the investigation immediately.

SUCOLitis, a WordPress blog, began publishing online in early October with posts satirizing those within the College of Law. The blog received criticism from the college after a student had filed a grievance accusing the satirical blog of harassment.

The law school informed Audaer of the complaint against him and began an investigation into the matter. Five days later, the blog became private after hitting more than 12,000 views. Earlier that day, a debate was held at the law school, where students and faculty expressed mixed opinions on the blog.

In the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities section of the SU 2009-2010 Student Handbook, the right on speech, expression and press supports FIRE’s view.

‘Students have the right to express themselves freely on any subject provided they do so in a manner that does not violate the Code of Student Conduct,’ according to the student handbook. ‘Students, in turn, have the responsibility to respect the rights of all members of the University to exercise these freedoms.’

SU’s Code of Student Conduct states harassment can be oral, physical, written or verbal. The code further defines harassment as something that crosses the boundaries of protected free speech and is ‘directed at a specific individual(s), easily construed as ‘fighting words,’ and likely to cause an immediate breach of peace.’

In the academic year 2009-10, the Office of Judicial Affairs saw 108 cases of harassment, up from 53 in 2008-09, according to Judicial Affairs’ reports on student conduct.

The Computing and Electronic Communications Policy in the student handbook provides another definition of harassment: ‘Harassing others by sending annoying, abusive, profane, threatening, defamatory or offensive messages is prohibited.’ It goes on to list examples, such as sending threatening, obscene or repeated, unnecessary messages.

The letter from FIRE said, ‘satirical blog posts do not come close to meeting either standard under any reasonable reading of these policies.’

But Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech and associate professor of communications law and journalism, said the Code of Student Conduct is open to interpretation by SU officials.

‘The university has its code of conduct, and they interpret it however they want to interpret it,’ he said.

Cory Wallack, director of the SU Counseling Center, said harassment is a code of conduct issue.

Wallack said, in an e-mail, the Counseling Center would define harassment as unwanted, uninvited involvement in one’s life that could take on multiple forms.

The students the Counseling Center sees have primarily been harassed on identity-related issues, such as race, religion and sexual orientation, Wallack said.

The Department of Public Safety uses New York State Penal Law when it comes to harassment, although the university relies on the Code of Student Conduct for its stance on each matter, as well, said DPS Capt. John Sardino. Sardino said SUCOLitis might be a case of aggravated harassment in the second degree.

‘There’s aggravated harassment, which picks up a lot of the electronic communications like repeated phone calls,’ he said.

Section 240.30 of state penal law states an individual is guilty of second-degree aggravated harassment when he or she initiates written, electronic, telephone communication or communication by a person who is likely to cause alarm or annoyance. The penal law states the individual also must have the ‘intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person.’

Sardino said a blog could fall into this category if particular people were picked on in multiple posts. But in most cases, the blog uses students’ names once or twice.

Onondaga County Chief Assistant District Attorney Alison Fineberg said the laws of New York are enforceable on any college campus.

‘If there’s probable cause to arrest and charge, then they’ll arrest and charge,’ Fineberg said.

Gutterman said the SUCOLitis blog does not contain enough repeated behavior to be considered harassment.

‘It requires a little more than just one insult,’ Gutterman said.

Raymond Dague, attorney and counselor at law in Syracuse, said he would be more worried about libel and slander than harassment, as posts that deface names put those individuals’ morals at stake.

Even though the blog is now private, Gutterman said he still expects the investigation by the College of Law to continue.

Said Gutterman: ‘It looks like they’re going to continue the investigation either way.’

jdharr04@syr.edu

Published on October 26, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Contact Jon: jdharr04@syr.edu