{shortcode-e46526a2c21c90cd01bc7bb03ddc6a678364f982}

Some members of Harvard’s graduate student union said the first University-wide anti-bullying and non-discrimination policies, released last month, did not reflect some of the union’s proposed changes for a broader definition of “bullying” and greater “neutrality” in the University’s resolution process.

The policies, which will go into effect Sept. 1, came out of proposals of two working groups established by the first contract between the University and Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Automobile Workers.

In April 2022, Harvard released drafts of its proposed policies on anti-bullying, non-discrimination, and sexual harassment, soliciting feedback from affiliates over the course of the summer.

The union’s feminist working group submitted proposed changes to the draft policies to Harvard on Sept. 28. Among other recommendations, the group called for specific language changes to broaden the definition of bullying and harassment, as well as anti-bias training for administrators involved with the complaint process, a clarification about the office or offices charged with handling cases, and a more concrete timeline for cases.

HGSU-UAW President Koby D. Ljunggren said they were initially disappointed to see certain recommendations not adopted in the final policies, but they became “a little bit more heartened” at seeing the other policy provisions.

“While not everything — and from our perspective, some of the most important things — weren’t adopted, there were some very healthy changes, we think, to some of the definitions. And in the very least, our feedback was heard,” Ljunggren said.

With HGSU-UAW on their second contract, these policy changes have been “a long time coming,” according to Marisa J. Borreggine, a member of the feminist working group who participated in drafting the original recommendations to the University.

“It took a lot of time and pressure to get meetings with University officials to even hear us out, so I am disappointed that some of our key suggestions have not been incorporated into the new University-wide policies,” Borreggine wrote in an email.

For instance, the language regarding “bullying” was not adjusted according to the union’s recommendations.

The feminist working group had proposed several adjustments to expand the definition of bullying: that the definition of an act in violation of the anti-bullying policy be changed from “pervasive, persistent, and/or severe” to “pervasive, persistent, or severe”; that an example of bullying be changed from “Deliberate and repeated humiliation” to “Deliberate or repeated humiliation”; and that an example of unwanted behavior be changed from a “physical, verbal, and/or written act” to “physical, verbal, or written act.”

The University did not adopt the second proposed change, but it did alter language related to the first and third points.

The group also recommended that while the University’s policies maintain that critical academic feedback does not constitute bullying, the policies should add a sentence saying, “However, critical feedback is not excluded as evidence in a bullying investigation.” Harvard’s final policy did not adopt this recommendation.

“We want to make sure that the definition of bullying adopted is actually going to be applicable to cases of bullying that we see through our union workplace issue forms,” Ljunggren said.

“We want to make sure there is some recourse even if it’s moderate bullying. There’s still those instances, and they should still be addressed,” Ljunggren added.

Borreggine wrote that certain terms in the policies are “outdated,” such as the University’s definition of discriminatory harassment as “unwelcome and offensive conduct” based on one’s protected status. In their recommendations last year, the feminist working group had criticized the term “unwelcome” conduct, arguing that it “places the burden of proof on the target of harassment or discrimination.”

Another main point of concern is the language and policies surrounding the makeup of “Determination Panels,” which review investigative reports and determine policy violations.

As of now, the policy describes “at minimum, three neutral members” for these panels, but the union has pushed for majority third-party, non-Harvard appointees to the panel.

“From our perspective, we think it’s much stronger and puts a lot more faith and confidence in the process when there is a majority of external decision makers on those panels, and we think that’s an important piece of a truly neutral policy,” Ljunggren said.

University spokesperson Jason A. Newton declined to comment.

In a March 22 interview with the Harvard Gazette, Sherri A. Charleston, Harvard’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, said after the policies go into effect in September, there will be “a progressive implementation” that will “take a few years of refinement.”

“To that end, we want to make sure a constant cycle of quality improvement is embedded into the rollout process, so that as we refine it, we’ll really figure out how to maximize our efficiency and awareness of resources and procedures,” she said. “What we see on Sept. 1 will not be the final product; it will be the beginning of a cycle of continuous improvement.”

Bailey A. Plaman, a member of the union’s feminist working group, said the University’s anti-bullying and non-discrimination policies resembled language in its Title IX policies, which the group has been pushing to amend.

“We were all really disappointed to see that they were based off of Title IX. A lot of language is very similar, if not the same, and a lot of the policy is very similar,” Plaman said.

Borreggine added that there was no “compelling reason” for the University’s anti-bullying and non-discrimination policies to mirror its Title IX language.

“We had a chance here to create policies that were more considerate of the needs of folks who experience harm and how they can be made whole again, and the policies fall short in that regard,” Borreggine wrote.

The University plans to release changes to its Title IX and sexual misconduct policies on Sept. 1, after the Department of Education updates federal Title IX rules, according to Newton.

As for the anti-bullying and non-discrimination policies, Ljunggren said the union can push for amendments to the language through bargaining for them in its next contract.

—Staff writer Julia A. Maciejak can be reached at julia.maciejak@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @maciejak_a.