Lessons from the Harvard Anti-Bullying Policy
An analysis of the policy enacted in September 2023 and what we can learn from it
Credit: dusanpetkovic / iStock / Getty Images Plus
Harvard’s recent Anti-Bullying Policy (the Policy) has many good elements. It is missing important elements regarding the definition of bullying and how the Policy should work. There are lessons in this.
Before turning to the weaknesses, first see a strong point worth copying. The Policy prohibits: “… intimidating gestures directed at an individual or individuals. Examples include: A physical, verbal, or written act toward another person, which causes them reasonably to fear for their safety or the safety of others.” This clearly covers expressions of support for violence against any person or group. If Dr. Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard, knew this, she could have given a great answer to a Congressional question about chants supporting genocide of Jews. It might have saved her job.
Elements to strengthen the Harvard Policy and yours
The best policies address when to call the police (e.g., the National Institutions of Health CIVIL Program*). Some physical harassment (e.g., blocking a person in a room) or threats of physical harm are matters for the police, not for school administrators. The best policies tell victims of threats to call the police first and HR later. Lesser abuse should be handled by your organization’s procedures.
Another element needed by the Policy (and many others) is from the then Mayor of Nashville’s Executive Order 39**. It says: “Supervisory personnel who allow abusive conduct to continue or fail to take appropriate action upon learning of such conduct will also be subject to corrective and/or disciplinary action.” This should be revised to “Supervisory personnel and HR staff who allow …” (This puts leaders and HR on notice. You need it.)
Concepts overlooked
The Policy sets out a definition of bullying: “Bullying, used as a shorthand for hostile and abusive behavior or power-based harassment, is defined here as harmful interpersonal aggression by words or actions that humiliate, degrade, demean, intimidate, or threaten an individual or individuals.” This is good, but the focus on “words or actions” is unduly limiting. Make it “words, actions, or deliberate inactions.” When an employee requests to meet with or speak to a supervisor or manager and they cannot meet or talk for a day or two, cut them some slack. If management is present but refuses to meet or talk for two or three weeks, it is a deliberate inaction. A refusal to respond to a reasonable request is demeaning and humiliating without a word said or an act done.
“The Policy encompasses abusive expression or ad hominem attacks that are verbal or nonverbal, spoken or written…” The faculty and students at Harvard know the meaning of ad hominem. But the Policy covers all employees. It should say “or personal attacks …”
The text includes “nonverbal.” This is a must. It helps to have a few examples, such as sneers, cold stares, and angry gestures. (Charles Darwin addressed this in “The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals”, 1872.)
Under “Sabotage or threatened sabotage of the studies, work, or career advancement…,” the Policy says that examples include: … “Spreading false or misleading information or malicious rumors.” This common mistake allows spreading hurtful but true personal/private information. It should be “Maliciously spreading information or rumors, whether false or true, e.g. private personal information.” (This follows ancient Jewish law on gossip and Catholic law on the Sin of Detraction.) This section is missing a prohibition on: Providing false or misleading information to a person, or withholding information which they need.
What’s not bullying
The Policy states: Examples of conduct that would not ordinarily violate this Policy include the following:
- “Administrative actions such as performance reviews (including negative performance reviews), appropriate discipline, critical feedback, assigning work to employees, or other managerial decisions.” These should be limited to actions taken for the legitimate interests of the University. Publicly humiliating students or workers is not a purpose of this or any organization.
- “Differences of opinion, interpersonal conflicts, and occasional disagreements, which are often part of academic and working life and do not necessarily constitute bullying.” This should start as: “Civil expression of differences of opinion, … do not necessarily constitute bullying.” Then add that screaming and hostile gestures are not civil.
Conflicting policies
Page 11 of the Anti-Bullying Policy states: “An individual can be found to have violated this Policy in addition to other relevant University or School policies, …” but a complainant may only file under one of the policies or procedures.” This is traditional in labor relations.
Under “Jurisdiction”, the Policy contradicts itself by stating: “This Policy and its accompanying procedures apply to alleged acts of bullying, … but DOES NOT APPLY {emphasis added} to alleged misconduct … within the scope of other University policies.”
Much abusive conduct that falls under sexual harassment or EEO discrimination would also be bullying/abuse/harassment. An anti-bullying policy is a way to resolve cases in an informal manner, outside of the law. Precluding the use of the anti-bullying policy is an error. It does not help anyone.
Conclusion
Universities and other large organizations need anti-bullying policies. They need to communicate those policies frequently (say this in your policy). They must implement the policies, and hold accountable officials who fail to carry out the policies. This protects the employees, students, etc., and the reputations of the organizations and their leaders. Your business, agency, or school name is worth protecting.
Sources
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!
