The Online Reflector

A new pet policy, formulated by the president’s cabinet and presented to the faculty senate on March 23, went into effect April 1 and will no longer allow furry friends in any buildings on campus.

This policy states that no domestic animals will be allowed in buildings on the University of Indianapolis campus. They will be allowed on grounds, but must be kept on a leash and properly cleaned up after. No pets can be left tied up or unattended anywhere on campus.

There will be an exception clause that states that animals will be allowed on campus for educational purposes.

“I appreciate that the administration recognizes that there are units on campus [like biology] that have a real need in their research and teaching for animals,” said Mark Harrison, chair and professor of the biology department.

This policy could affect the PAWS organization, the finals week pet-a-dog event to relieve stress or the training of service dogs on campus. Faculty senate president and professor of philosophy and religion Jonathan Evans doesn’t foresee this happening though.

“I would hope they would be accommodating to those organizations of activities,” Evans said. “From what I’ve heard there has always been an unstated policy that has been enforced. I think it’s better to have it in writing so now people will know the rules and won’t see it as them being picked on if they are told to take their pets home.”

Pennell said that she is not opposed to having a pet policy, but is opposed to this particular policy.

“I don’t like the absolute 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, absolute no pets in buildings ever,” Pennell said.

Chair of modern languages Gerburg Garmann strongly supports the new policy.

“I love animals,” Garmann said. “However, many colleagues and students are afraid of them. There have been times when I’ve been called and asked to step out of the office to talk to someone and this should never happen.

People should never go without help because they are afraid to come to me.”
Pennell, however, disliked how the new policy was said to be introduced due to international students being afraid of dogs.

“We don’t need any reason to have an us versus them relationship,” Pennell said. “When we have those kinds of attitudes there is never a productive result. I’m sure there are plenty of American students that have problems with pets in buildings as well.”

Also, Pennell said that this sounds like a problem that could have been worked out with certain individuals, and then if they were unresponsive to the problem brought to higher authority.

“It sounds like the complaints went straight to the executive or higher,” Pennell said.

Nevertheless, the policy is in part driven by liability.

“If there should be an incident where an animal might attack a visitor, then there could be a lawsuit,” Garmann said.

Pennell suggests using a provision much like one used at Simon Fraser University that states, “By bringing a non-exempt animal/pet onto the Burnaby campus, the owner accepts sole financial and legal responsibility for any damage, injury or other harm caused by the animal/pet and will indemnify the University should it be found legally liable for any damage, injury or other harm caused by the animal/pet.”

She described how she often is on campus in the summer working late into the night when there is hardly anyone else on campus and she keeps her dog with her in her office because she feels safer that way.

Pennell said that there were many concerns about this policy, but not as many were brought up in their meeting.

“One faculty senator came to me in private after the meeting and said that they were told not to state their opinion on the matter,” Pennell said.

Evans said that there were enough complaints by various people concerning animals on campus that action needed to be taken.

Pennell and Garmann agree that a pet policy is needed, their views just differ concerning how it should be worded and implemented. They also both agree that there should have been more discussion on the topic.

“There was a need to make a policy, but I wish the intent had been communicated more widely,” Pennell said. “We all had a very short window of taking it in and could have heard of it in advance.”

Evans recognized that the policy will not make everyone happy, but he hopes that the UIndy community will be able to accept this policy and realize its importance.

“Because it affects so many people, the policy was necessary,” Evans said. “With the pet policy, we hope that it will be able to take into account all the different aspects and ways it can affect people, but it’s hard to take all things into account. Inevitably with any new policy people will be unhappy.”