At the beginning of the meeting, Goode outlined the need for such a week. He cited the many bias-related incidents Georgetown has seen in the past year or so, including the several bias-related incidents which took place at the beginning of the year, prompting the vigil shown at left.

Goode then described the ideas that had already been discussed as examples for events that might be held during the week. These ideas included a big lawn game day, dorm competitions, a barbeque, and a performance festival featuring as many campus performing arts groups as possible where students express the importance of nonviolence in an artistic way.

“The only way it’s really going to work is if we have this broad coalition,” Goode said, adding that the cultural and sports groups at Georgetown have sometimes been difficult to reach out to.

“The biggest way to stop violence is if you know the people around you,” Goode said. “And that’s only going to happen if we get these groups together. Otherwise we’re going to have pockets of people who aren’t intermingling.”

Photo by Kara Brandeisky

Three American University students are producing a short video about the several bias-related incidents that took place on Georgetown’s campus this semester. Though they are producing the film for a class, their main intention is to post it on the website run by “Not in Our Town,” a group that responds to hate crimes across the country.

Ashley Dejean said that she, Marley Cook, and Jasmine Rao spent three days at Georgetown filming the scene of the crimes and interviews with several students and faculty who were involved with the response to the incidents, including Carter Lavin (SFS ‘10), Ellen Greer (COL ‘11), Adam Talbot (COL ‘12), and LGBTQ Center Director Sivagami Subbaraman. The film will run between three and five minutes.

]]> http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2009/12/03/au-students-plan-short-film-about-georgetown-bias-crimes/feed/ 0 http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2009/11/19/on-the-record-with-gu-pride-co-presidents-joseph-graumann-sfs-11-and-carlos-leon-col-10/ http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2009/11/19/on-the-record-with-gu-pride-co-presidents-joseph-graumann-sfs-11-and-carlos-leon-col-10/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:36:27 +0000 Satinder Kaur http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/?p=11327 Joseph Graumann (SFS ‘11), left, and Carlos Leon (COL ‘10)

In this week’s issue, the Voice spoke with co-Presidents of GU Pride Joseph Graumann (SFS ‘11) and Carlos Leon (COL ‘10) about their organization, the recent hate crimes on campus and the challenges facing the LGBTQ community.  This is the extended transcript of our interview with them.

The Voice: How did you get involved in GU Pride?

Joseph: Well, I came out on campus during the Out for Change campaign. It was a lot of the issues at the time and the struggle that went on for recognition of the LGBTQ community really made me look inside myself, and, I mean as corny as it sounds, my so-called “brothers and sisters” are off fighting the good fight and I am not even secure enough to tell my friends.

Ever since then, I realized that there is work to be done. And my good friend Ellen, who was already involved with the Out for Change campaign, Ellen Greer, she really encouraged me to be involved in the community and I started out as historian, when there was an opening in the beginning of my sophomore year [2008] and then sophomore year, December, they had elections for co-chair and I ran and got elected.

The Voice: What is one thing you wish to change about GU Pride?

Joseph: I would like to see GU Pride become a more welcoming and open place for people who are in the process of coming out or who feel like they are unable to find a safe place with other aspects of the community that administers to LGBTQ people.

The Voice: The best thing about GU Pride?

Joseph: What I like about GU Pride is that although not everybody who is affiliated with the organization shows up to everything, we have a pretty good sense of comradery and we’ve developed a very good sense of community on campus, which is really important, given the nature of our identities, it’s really hard to do that, it’s hard to forge a cohesive and diverse, both racially [and] socio-economically, group on campus.

The Voice: What is the relationship of GU Pride with the University administration? Do you have a good working relationship?

Joseph: Honestly, I would have to say yes. The University has been more than willing to talk to us, we have never been told we can’t do something – perhaps we are not trying hard enough. Certainly, the LGBTQ Center, an arm of the administration, has been nothing but supportive. We have an excellent working relationship with them.

There is CSP, which is the other office that we deal with on a daily basis. We’ve also worked with Campus Ministry, DPS – there’s a, I think, LGBTQ liaison, I forget her name. The University has been very positive.

The Voice: What is GU Pride’s relationship with the new LGBTQ liaison from DPS going to be like?

Carlos: I mean, the position was just created last week, or in the last two weeks, so it’s still fairly new and the relationship is still being determined.

Joseph: It’s good to have her.

Carlos: It is important to have visibility, even within the Department of Public Safety. Metro has an LGBTQ liaison and campuses around the country have a LGBTQ liaison. So, it’s important for us to know that the campus is being aware of the existence of bias-related incidents. So, that’s always an important step for public safety.

The Voice: What are your future plans for GU Pride?

Joseph: Constitution. We are currently working on our constitution, in a way that we hope will better serve the community and allow us to reach out to our general members in a better way. It will also define how to work with the LGBTQ Resource Center, which is something that needs to be codified. [We will] also generally update and give [ourselves] a more streamlined board structure that will enable us to do other things.

Carlos: We have been working on it actively for the past two weeks. It will be, hopefully, voted for by the membership and approved in December, so then after December—essentially once finals end, then the constitution will take affect.

Joseph: [Also,] we need to start fundraising. It’s an important thing for the organization, to make sure that we have the means by which we can advocate for our population.

The Voice: What do you think of the atmosphere at Georgetown University in regards to the LGBTQ community?

Joseph: It is usually an accepting place. It’s unfortunate that there is still bias but it does so on a very small scale and I think though, despite support from the religious communities on campus, that much of the bias comes from a kind of grounding in religion. That is really unfortunate.

Carlos: I think there are two major issues when it comes to the way the LGBTQ community exists on campus, one part I feel it is a very positive response we get from straight allies and just generally the Georgetown community that might not be involved in GU Pride. It’s always very supportive.

Then, there’s the other issue, just within the LGBTQ community itself–there is still a very strong perception that the gay, lesbian, bi community on campus is very white. So that has a lot to do with issues of visibility and I think that it is an important issue the organization–all organizations, not just GU Pride—should address, GU Pride concerning more looking at programming to get more students of color involved. The board [of GU Pride] varies, but currently, just the way the board ended up coming to be, it is overly and predominately white.

The Voice: What has the student reaction been like, in regards to the recent hate crimes?

Joseph: Overall, being here fall of 2007, when a lot of the initial push for the creation of the LGBTQ center and just greater LGBTQ awareness on campus started, I have seen the active participation of students outside of the LGBTQ community just expand tremendously, just greater support. Even a lot of the immediate action that was taken, it was outside the LGTBQ community.

A lot of the rallies and a lot of this movement has been pushed by people that I don’t necessarily know, and that has always been surprising, just the active participation of people that are outside the circle has been very comforting. Within two years, I have seen Georgetown campus and student body drastically change their opinions, in the sense of being proactive and making proactive decisions, which has been bery comforting.

Jospeh: With this new movement we have, we are working really closely with GSC and their push for better pay for DPS officers and for more DPS officers, which is definitely [important for] Pride and this new Students for Campus Safety. It’s something we recognize is really fundamental to improving the situation on campus for everybody. So, yeah–[there has been a] really great response from lots of organizations.

The Voice: How is the bias reporting system working out?

Joseph: Well, the bias reporting system was something that came out of the Out for Change campaign in the Fall of 2007. We as GU Pride have been trying to promote it, have been promoting it successfully, especially in junction with the resource center. Sivagami [Subbaraman] sits on the committee that sees these incident reports and it’s pretty much a fact that the more these incidents get reported, the more information the university has and the more willing the university is to recognize the problem with bias on campus.

What Pride has been doing is handing out key chains, we have been constantly plugging the bias reporting system to media in our events, in our daily interactions with people. If someone comes to me personally, either as a friend or if they know we’re involved in Pride or something, and they have news of an incident, the first thing I ask them is “are you safe” “did you report it”? It’s really important we give that information.

The Voice: What is Pride’s relationship with the LGBTQ Resource Center like?

Carlos: In terms of how they deal with DPS and administrative details, I am just not aware, but overall when it comes to the resources they offer students, they have been going beyond that administrative role and have been very supportive and on a personal level with students on campus. Matt [LeBlanc] and Sivagami have been very visible and present at student rallies, and that is in a sense personal and emotional, and they have been there.

Joseph: knowing them personally, we know that they have our backs, and that they are working with our best interests in mind, but beyond that we don’t really have the information [of administrative details].

Photo by Jackson Perry.

Several administrators attended the panel, included Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson and Vice President for University Safety Rocco DelMonaco. While there was little information about the crimes, the forum was full of information about safety at Georgetown.

DEFINING HATE CRIMES: The moderator pressed Olson to explain why Public Safety Alerts typically say “bias-related incident” instead of “hate crime.” Olson said Georgetown uses a legalistic definition of hate crime that only certain crimes qualify under.

When GUSA Speaker Adam Talbot (COL ‘12) asked Olson about the GUSA Senate’s bill to change the way hate crimes are treated under the Student Code of Conduct, Olson said the Office of Student Conduct would consider the legislation, but declined to say whether it would be adopted.

STUDENT PATROLS: In meetings after the hate crimes, GU Pride and other students have talked about organizing a group of students patrol campus at night, presumably to prevent hate crimes. DelMonaco pointed students towards other student-run safety groups like the Students Safety Advisory Board and APO’s shuttle service; Olson seemed less than enthusiastic about the idea.

“We need to make sure that if we’re putting students out in a patrol function, that those students are going to be safe,” Olson said.

More about security cameras on campus, arming DPS and Solidarity’s spat with Rocco after the jump!

CAMERAS ON CAMPUS: DelMonaco was asked why, since there is a camera near the site of the second hate crime, the camera hasn’t been used in the investigation. He said he wasn’t sure whether the camera in question was aimed at the site of the hate crime. Additionally, not all security cameras have a direct feed to DPS, so if this is one of them investigators have to go through the tapes.

In good news for Vox commenters who hunger for more cameras, DelMonaco said there are plans to expand Georgetown’s camera system. In bad news for said commenters, DelMonaco said there is currently no money to purchase new cameras.

ARMING DPS: DelMonaco said there are no plans to give DPS more lethal weapons.

SOLIDARITY V. ROCCO: Ever since the Solidarity’s representative’s speech at the hate crime vigil, Solidarity has been using the hate crimes as a springboard for its campaign to support the DPS union in negotiations with the University for higher wages.

Surprisingly, a question about the union negotiations earned the biggest reaction from the audience, with cheers and whoops. Or maybe it’s not so surprising, since higher DPS wages seem like the most concrete suggested response to the hate crimes.

DelMonaco said he can’t comment on ongoing with negotiations with the union, out of respect for the negotiations.  To which a Solidarity representative later asked,  “Do you really expect us to think you respect the union representatives?” DelMonaco looked annoyed.

On Monday, November 9, 2009 at 12:30 a.m., a student reported to DPS that while walking near the intersection of 37th and Prospect Streets, a group of four unknown males approached the student and engaged in verbal harassment, making comments regarding the student’s perceived sexual orientation. No physical contact occurred between the complainant and the suspects.

Two of the suspects are described as white men, 6 feet tall, with curly dark hair. One is described as skinny, while the other is described as fat.

Public Safety Alert after the jump

On Monday, November 9, 2009 at 12:30 a.m., a student reported to DPS that while walking near the intersection of 37th and Prospect Streets, a group of four unknown males approached the student and engaged in verbal harassment, making comments regarding the student’s perceived sexual orientation. The student did not respond to their comments, continued walking, and reported the incident to DPS.

The MPD Gay & Lesbian Liaison Unit was notified on November 9, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. of this bias related incident.

The Department of Public Safety is requesting that anyone who has information regarding this or any other incident(s), or who noticed any suspects before or after the incident(s), to contact them immediately at (202) 687-4343.
Incident

Date: November 09, 2009

Time: 12:30 AM

Location: Non-campus, West Georgetown

Address: 37th and Prospect Streets, NW

Incident type: Hate or Bias Related Incident

Respondents: Public Safety

Incident summary: On Monday, November 9, 2009 at 12:30 a.m., a student reported to DPS that while walking near the intersection of 37th and Prospect Streets, a group of four unknown males approached the student and engaged in verbal harassment, making comments regarding the student’s perceived sexual orientation. No physical contact occurred between the complainant and the suspects.

On Monday, November 9, 2009 at 12:30 a.m., a student reported to DPS that while walking near the intersection of 37th and Prospect Streets, a group of four unknown males approached the student and engaged in verbal harassment, making comments regarding the student’s perceived sexual orientation. The student did not respond to their comments, continued walking, and reported the incident to DPS.

The MPD Gay & Lesbian Liaison Unit was notified on November 9, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. of this bias related incident.

Victim(s):No physical injuries were sustained in this incident, nor were any threats made against the complainant.

Victim(s) status:

Witness description of suspect(s):Two of the suspects were described as white males approximately 6 feet tall with curly, dark hair. One suspect was heavy set, the other suspect was slim. No information was provided about the other two suspects.

GUSA will not stand for these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane campus

GUSA FUND: The big news from this week’s meeting was that the Senate passed the long-debated GUSA Fund, which will allow them to fund clubs directly. For more information, check out Vox’s post from earlier this morning.

HATE CRIMES: GUSA passed a revised version of Senator Josh Mogil’s (SFS ’11—Off Campus) changes to the Student Code of Conduct regarding hate crimes on a vote of 16 to two, with one abstention.

The new version of the resolution adds Hate-Crimes as a Category C violation, but keeps bias as a “parameter” for other violations that are not “criminal acts of hate,” but are motivated by the aggravating factor of bias.

Mogil said he decided to leave in the section on “bias-related incidents” after speaking with Vice President of Student Affairs Todd Olson about the resolution.

Senator Nick Troiano (COL ’11—Village A, A-D) still had doubts about the necessity of the resolution.

“There’s no practical difference between someone who’s adjudicated based on a criminal act that would otherwise fall under Category C violations and those that would now fall under the sub-category,” Troiano said.

“Again I doubt the efficacy of creating a sub-category that only judges people based on what their thoughts were at the time when they committed this crime,” Troiano continue. “Shouldn’t we be judging people based on the outcomes of the crime, what they inflicted instead of trying to get inside their head? … Or is it only people who were audibly saying stuff at the time they were committing the crime that we’re going to place in the sub-category?”

Mogil said that in his experience, someone had drawn a swastika on him freshman year based on his perceived religious affiliation, which he said, “Everyone would consider a hate crime.” But under the current Student Code of Conduct, he was not allowed to charge his attacker with a Category C violation because he had not physically been harmed.

Troiano also asked what would happen if someone was assaulted because of a political belief.

“If we’re granting special exceptions for certain people, what happens to the people who aren’t granted these special exceptions?” he asked. “If this isn’t exhaustive and it isn’t going to change practically how crimes are adjudicated, we shouldn’t go down this path.”

Mogil replied that the resolution is based on D.C. and Federal law, which does not cover political affiliation as a motive for a hate crime, but said he was willing to change the definition.

Senator Jon-Matthew Hopkins (COL ‘13—Darnall) said part of the reason “hate crimes” were made a separate Category C violation was that Category C violations must go to the Judicial Hearing Board, whereas other incidents do not.

Speaker of the Senate Adam Talbot (COL ‘12, LXR) said he would support the resolution because it represents a starting point to open a debate with the Office of Student Code of Conduct.

RATS! PT. 3: Senator Arman Ismail’s (COL ‘11—Reynolds) efforts to learn more about the eradication of the rats has finally culminated in a bill allocating $200 to initiate a public awareness campaign. The campaign will “promote effective trash and waste removal and storage practices” through fliers, door-to-door campaigning and tabling. Ismail called it the “next step in an ongoing process” to work with Facilities and educate students about the rodent issue on campus.

In a more lighthearted moment, Troiano sought assurance that the $200 will not be used to introduce snake species to prey on the rats, as some have suggested. Ismail assured the Senate he finds snakes the “most foul creature imaginable” and he would not use the money to buy animals of any kind.

TAKE YOUR PROFESSOR TO LUNCH: As part of an initiative to improve “intellectual life” on campus, the executive is hoping to launch a program called “Take Your Professor to Lunch,” where neighborhood restaurants such as Clyde’s, Saxby’s and Tombs would offer students a 20 to 30 percent discount if they go to lunch with their professors. According to GUSA Vice President Jason Kluger (MSB ’11), Saxby’s is already on board.

RATE MY LANDLORD/DORMITORY?: The executive has done more research into the idea of a “rate my landlord”-type website and found a Georgetown senior who already runs a “good website” on the subject. Instead of starting from scratch, the executive hopes to expand on the already existing site to include more direct student feedback about their experiences.

Senator Chetan Panda (COL ‘13—New South) asked if the website might also include a section on “rate my dormitory.”

“The student housing website is a joke,” Panda said. “It has no pictures, no testimonies.”

Kluger liked the idea and said he would get Panda in contact with the senior who runs the website.

61-D CITATIONS AND 2010 CAMPUS PLAN: The executive says they have been having a lot of meetings about 61-D citations, neighbor relations and the new campus plan. About the 2010 Campus Plan, Kluger briefly mentioned, “It’s not the greatest situation.”

Additionally, the executive hopes to assemble a lawyer panel of Georgetown graduates to give students advice about what to do if they get a 61-D citations so students are not “in the dark” about the charges they face.

The Georgetown Solidarity Committee just released an open letter to University President John DeGioia demanding better treatment of and higher salaries for Department of Public Safety officers.

The letter says that the recent hate crimes have revealed “a pervasive, historically rooted, and dangerous climate on campus” which is due in large part to “neglecting the well-being” of DPS officers.

The letter says that the DPS officers are paid roughly three dollars less than other campus security officers at other D.C. schools and the department is consequently habitually understaffed.  Solidarity is insisting on a four dollar raise over the next three years for current officers and “a fair staffing policy.”

According to the letter:

DPS Officers are the lowest-paid police in Washington, D.C. … SafeRides, escort services, and other safety systems are frequently understaffed and unable to provide sufficient services. These issues hinder the retention of employees and undervalue long-term officers with the experiential knowledge of Georgetown, which is essential to the trust needed between DPS and the community. This “revolving door” leaves the Georgetown community vulnerable to future incident …

Even in hard economic times, we must not compromise the respect, security and well-being of those charged with keeping us safe.

Lanier, who recently told WTOP that MPD is classifying the assaults as hate crimes, was asked on WTOP’s Ask the Chief Program whether it was possible that the issue of same-sex marriage could have sparked the attack.  She responded:

“Whenever there’s an issue that’s getting a lot of attention, there may be something that’s sparking these assaults. Certainly that’s something we are looking at.”

WTOP notes that there have been 31 hate crimes based on sexual orientation in D.C. during 2009.

Lanier said MPD has put an investigator on the case, and that the Gay Liaison Unit is assisting with the investigation.  She was also asked whether it’s possible that the two assaults are related, and responded that “we don’t have anything to connect the two incidents as of right now.”

After much debate and discussion, the students decided on a set of goals to bring up at today’s meeting, namely better communication on- and off-campus among appropriate safety organizations, a more tolerant culture, better pay and conditions for Department of Public Safety officers, changing the student conduct code to make hate crimes a Type C violation, and protecting students by offering self defense classes and a possible volunteer task force to help walk students home on late nights.

The issues of better pay for DPS officers and changing the Student Code of Conduct especially struck a cord, and many said that having the lowest paid campus officers in the city is creating a “revolving door” situation, where the officers come to Georgetown for paid training and then leave for other universities.

As for the changing of the Student Code of Conduct, there was also a consensus that hate crimes need to be treated with as much seriousness as assault, sexual assault, and theft.