The Undergraduate Association election is currently being held by electronic ballot on athena. If you want to vote, and you are an MIT undergraduate, log onto athena and type % add ua % vote Electronic voting will continue until the end of Tuesday, at midnight. On Wednesday, old-fashioned paper balloting will be available for those who did not vote electronically. The ballot includes elections for UA President and Vice-President, UA Finance Board members, and class officers. It also includes four referendum questions. One referendum question concerns the student life fee. It is described in documentation made available in the vote program. The other three referendum questions concern freedom of speech and the MIT harassment policy. Documentation on these questions is not provided in the vote program; consequently it is provided here. (As a member of the sponsoring group, I should warn you I am not an unbiased observer.) The three questions, all of which are non-binding, are: 1. Should MIT guarantee its students the same freedom of speech that students have at public universities? 2. Should students have the freedom to express unpopular or controversial views? 3. Should the MIT harassment policy, which currently restricts constitutionally protected speech, be revised to provide protection for freedom of speech? Rationale for the questions: ---------------------------- The MIT harassment policy reads in part: Harassment is any conduct, verbal or physical, on or off campus, which has the intent or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's or group's educational or work performance at MIT or which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational, work or living environment. This definition raises serious freedom of speech concerns, especially because of its inclusion of the "offensive environment" test. As a university, MIT is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. Discussion of controversial political issues, including those involving race, gender, and sexual orientation, is essential if we are to discover the truth and improve society. Well-intentioned people can hold views that are very offensive to each other. Consider the religious fundamentalist and the gay activist. It is doubtful that either could speak about sexuality without offending the other. Should we silence them? Under the MIT policy, we might have to, even though each might like the chance to try to persuade the other. More likely, the administration would side with one group to silence the other, a result which would be very unfair. The policy's application is not reserved for serious cases. The sexual harassment report available on athena in /mit/provost/sexual_harassment_report makes clear that being overheard telling an allegedly sexist joke or saying an allegedly sexist remark could be an actionable offense. "Ogling" and "leering" are also banned, even though the dictionary definitions of these words basically boil down to looking and smiling. The harassment policy may be illegal. MIT is a private institution. But under Massachusetts law, students at private colleges in Massachusetts have been held to have the same free speech rights as students at public universities. Federal courts struck down speech codes at Wisconsin and Michigan which used similar language to MIT's harassment policy, including use of the "offensive environment" test. Students who vote for the referendum questions will be voting for a new policy that gives greater emphasis to freedom of speech. Such a policy might limit use of the "offensive environment" test and protect speech which is well-intentioned or political in nature or which is not repeated after it has been made clear it is offensive.