Panelists at a forum on hate crimes and recent changes in the Student Code of Conduct failed to agree on a specific way to educate students about diversity last night, while agreeing that education is the key to achieving understanding. Panelists included leaders of minority organizations and members of the Georgetown Unity Coalition, which helped change the code of conduct to intensify penalties for “bias motivated” acts.

Among the panel’s topics of discussion were various incidents at Georgetown last year where defamatory language and action was used against students because of their race, sexuality and religion, referring many times to a student toppling and damaging a menorah during Hanukkah in Red Square. The panelists expressed varied ideas as to the benefit of the code’s changes and with what responsibility and adequacy the university reacted to these incidents.

Panelists included GUSA President Tawan Davis (COL ’01), GU Pride President Frank Salamone (COL ’01), Black Student Alliance Crystal Tomlin (COL ’01), Asian-American Students Association Co-President Hannah Sin (COL ’01), MEChA President Hector Lopez (SFS ’01), Jewish Student Association Treasurer Lesley Reider (MSB ’03), NAACP member Ciatta Baysah (COL ’01) and Director of the Center for Minority Education Affairs Dennis Williams.

The panelists began the discussion with brief opening remarks about their experiences with discrimination and discriminatory action, focusing on personal experience with the topic. Lopez, the head of the Unity Coalition, said he was raised in a small Texas town, which was heavily Latino and he never had to deal with or hear of any crimes committed because of bias.

“We never experienced any hate because of race there,” he said.

According to Lopez, the first time he experienced racism was in an oral presentation competition, one judge cost him the competition because of racial bias and prejudice. He said the judge in the competition wrote various racial slurs on his evaluation form, demeaning Lopez and his participation in the competition.

In others’ opening statements many recounted personal experience, but a number said they never had encountered discriminatory acts in their life.

“I’ve never myself had personal experience with hate crimes, but [those that occured last year have] touched me in such a way that it feels personal,” said Reider. She also addressed what she felt needs to be done to prevent future incidents. “The legislation we have in this code of conduct is a start,” she said.

Taking a different approach, Davis asked a series of question in his opening, in some cases questioning even the appropriateness of the changes in the code, but also interjecting why the code changes are necessary in some instances.

The panel then answered a series of question directed to it from the moderator, Rose Ochi of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The university made the changes to the Student Code of Conduct regarding “bias-related violations” during the summer and, informed the student body of the changes on Aug. 29 in a campus wide e-mail written by University President Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J. The Unity Coalition initiated the addition to the Student Code of Conduct in February in a proposal submitted to the administration titled, “Ending Hate and Intolerance: A Plan of Action.”

The proposal called for the Student Code of Conduct to include “special provisions addressing the aggravating nature of hate crimes.” The revised code enumerates specific punishments for violations which include “language or behaviors in which the student respondent knew or reasonably should have known would make an individual or group feel intimidated or uncomfortable because of, but not limited to, others’ actual or perceived: color, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion and/or sexual orientation.” The code also indicated that “bias-related violations may result in a more serious sanction.”

The new code did not go over as smoothly as those at the panel discussion believed, according to Lopez. He said that as a resident assistant he was one of the first to hear about the changes and that many of his colleagues expressed a “negative” or “cautious” reaction.

Panelists speculated as to the cause of the changes and whether the university’s reaction to the incidents last year was strong enough throughout the evening. Salamone said that “negative publicity [from the local media] always brings about change,” and attributed changes made to Georgetown’s policy on sexual assault changes many years ago to the influence of negative publicity.

The major point the panelists emphasized throughout the forum was the need to educate the Georgetown community about diversity. Baysah said that she believed the only way to effectively do this was to have mandatory diversity classes as part of the core requirements. Other panelists such as Davis disagreed, deferring more to education through extra-curricular activities, such as Georgetown Day last May.

Even between panelists there was a diversity of belief on how to strive for diversity and how to do it effectively. “We push diversity on the shoulders of people of color, which is wrong,” Williams said. Panelists shook their heads in agreement and discussed ways to spread the efforts for diversity.

“I think diversity is key,” Baysah said. “Diversity of body, spirit and mind is key.”