Johns Hopkins University, well known for its Medical School and lacrosse team, is apparently making a name for itself in the 'hood of Baltimore.

Sigma Chi, a fraternity on campus, thought that the best way to celebrate Baltimore's diverse, albeit rough, neighborhood was to hold a "Halloween in the Hood" party, encouraging students to wear "regional clothing from our locale" including, but not limited to "bling bling ice ice, grills" and the obligatory "hoochie hoops."

My immediate reaction probably served me best: That is just flat out racist. And as it would appear, JHU's administrators agreed with my assessment, but rather than chastise the fraternity's insensitivity and stupidity, they challenged them saying that the members' actions caused "harassment" and "intimidation" to occur.

I have long struggled against these terms of legal vacuity, and it appears that JHU is not going to make my struggle much easier any time soon.

JHU's Student Conduct Board held that Sigma Chi violated harassment policies by performing "conduct or a pattern of conduct that harasses a person or a group" and through "intimidation of any person which results in limiting her/his full access to all aspects of life at the university."

These definitions of harassment and intimidation are messy, even in the eyes of those who challenge hate speech's legality. However, despite these weak policies, the university's model of dealing with this issue provides something of a model for future disputes along these lines.

JHU's Black Student Union was rightfully frustrated by this insensitive party, and the university held listening sessions with students to foster understanding of the situation while attempting to halt the undercurrent of bigotry on campus.

JHU listened, and the result: punishment for the fraternity, but in a manner consistent with the informality of the situation. Although JHU will deprive the fraternity of its means of exploitative expression, parties, until 2008, it did mandate a less formal approach to the problem: incorporation of diversity training into its new members program.

This "punishment" provides a great example of how to handle disputes that should avoid the scope of formal law, but should not go unheard as real and legitimate problems in society.

As my fellow minority students can certainly attest, there are many times when you resort to informality out of choice and necessity. It could be as simple as walking away from situations when someone says something to you, and it does not sit well. You let it slide because you know that some battles just are not worth fighting.

However in situations that are worse, such as Michael Richards' racial tirade at a Los Angeles nightclub, it is awfully hard to maintain that composure and take the moral high road. In these situations, and I would argue that "Halloween in the Hood" is Richards-esque in, if nothing else, its stupidity, we must find a balance between formal law and letting it slide.

Sometimes approaching someone just is not enough, and JHU and its Black Student Union chapter recognized that fact in dealing with this matter. Pushing for prosecution in a formal legal institution would have compromised the goals of the community-building spirit driving the social probation placed against the fraternity.

JHU knew this and acted in a way that was responsible and provided a model for other universities to follow. By taking this path, JHU has presented a valuable lesson that you will not often hear from lawyers:

Justice does not always have to involve a judge and jury to be effective.

For schools, like UW, that are struggling to cope with perceived worsening racial attitudes on campus, let this be a lesson for combating our growing problem.

Robert Phansalkar ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.