Penn State doesn’t have an Anti-Bullying Policy. Do You?

INTRODUCTION: The search for the policy 

For several years, I have been studying anti bullying policies in universities. Over many months, I tried to discover an anti-bullying policy at Penn State University. I am interested in Penn State because many of my family members are graduates of the school.  

I spoke with the PSU HR office and the public relations office and asked for that policy. They told me that university policies are not available to people outside the university. Then I sent e-mail requests to half-a-dozen members of the board of trustees. I chose them based on their backgrounds, which I thought suggested some possible interest in this. Not one of them responded to my inquiry. To be kind, I will not identify them.  I was about to give up. 

Finally, I emailed PSU’s Office of General Counsel to make a right to know request under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law. I requested a copy of the university’s anti-bullying policy OR a confirmation that the university did not have such a policy.  One associate general counsel responded to my inquiry.  She did not confirm that the school did not have such a policy. Instead, she pointed me to their Code of Responsible Conduct.  It is not an anti-bullying policy. 

I have been studying workplace bullying policies in Federal, State, and Municipal governments for more than 20 years, and universities for four.  I have written, advised, and spoken on these policies for many years.  I think I can draw a reasonable conclusion that PSU does not have an anti-bullying policy.  And they have about 37,000 employees. 

What is the problem? 

An organization without an anti-bullying policy lacks a strong tool to deal with abusive behaviors that are typically not prohibited by law.  Competent attorneys for every big employer whether government, for-profit, or non-profit organizations will have policies to address sexual harassment, and discrimination and harassment under EEO laws.  Those policies cover important issues, but they do not cover the full range of abusive, bullying, or harassing behavior in the workplace.  The lack of a policy presents a risk. 

One of my tasks as a Supervisory Economist in the OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis was to estimate risk of adverse events (from chemical exposure or physical hazards). For that task I used my background in probability and statistics. (For estimating costs of compliance, we were all economists.  OSHA cannot issue standards without showing the cost of the rules.)  Now, let’s look at one risk. 

One type of risk 

There is always a risk of hiring a person with a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).  Narcissists are wrapped up in themselves.  They tend to demean, degrade, and sabotage other workers -- not everyone, just one or two people at a time.  They drive away other workers, especially those who are smarter, or who have better educations, better experience, better social skills, and even better looks.   

The experts differ on the percentage of people who have NPD. I have seen estimates of 5%, 1%, and 1/2 of 1% (.5%). For this purpose, I take 1% as reasonable. In this case you have a 99% chance of not picking a new employee who has NPD.  Imagine that you must draw green marbles from a large barrel with 99% green and 1% red marbles.  The chance you pick a green one is 99% on each draw.   

Similarly, you have a 99% chance of NOT picking a narcissist on each hire. But the chance of picking a green marble (not a narcissist) every time in 100 picks is .99 times itself 100 times, by the laws of probability. That is written as .99^100, and it equals .3660 or 36.6%.  So, assuming NPDs are 1 in a 100, after 100 picks you have slightly better than 1 chance in 3 that you did not hire a single NPD. But if you have 1000 employees, the chance is .0043% that you did not hire a single NPD (red marble).  That leaves a 99.99% chance that you did pick at least one.  But Penn State has 37,000 employees, and they do not have an anti-bullying policy.  They do not have the easiest way to deal with abusive, bullying, harassing supervisors and workers.  

Medium-sized organizations, with 200 employees, would have a13.4% chance of not picking someone with NPD.  That is an 86.6% chance that they got at least one.  But wait, NPDs are not the only disruptors in your workplace. There are nasty, haughty, and jealous people who do not meet the criteria of a psychological disorder. That makes the chance you will hire at least some troublesome people much greater, and your need for a straight-forward way to deal with them much greater. 

Another problem that calls for anti-bullying policy 

Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Eugene  A. Rugala did a lot of work on workplace violence.  One of his reports, “Workplace Violence – Issues in Response,” states:  

“Mass murder on the job by disgruntled employees are media-intensive events. However, these mass murders, while serious, are relatively infrequent events. It is the threats, harassment, bullying, domestic violence, stalking, emotional abuse, intimidation, and other forms of behavior and physical violence that, if left unchecked, may result in more serious violent behavior. These are the behaviors that supervisors and managers have to deal with every day.” (This report is at https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publications-workplace-violence-workplace-violence/view.) 

How does an anti-bullying policy help? 

A good policy can help in many ways. A good policy advises that matters of sexual abuse and other physical violence should be reported to the police BEFORE calling HR. Other forms of abusive conduct should be reported to one’s supervisor or HR (or the Employee Assistance Program, if you have one). The NIH CIVIL Program on Workplace Violence covers bullying, and it points to when to call police and when to call HR. [https://hr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/public/documents/working-nih/civil/pdf/civil-trifold-brochure.pdf] 

A good policy also acknowledges what is not bullying/abusive conduct.  It would note that factual, professional, and civil criticism is not bullying. It should note that public humiliation is never civil, it is psychological violence. 

And a good policy tells supervisors and HR that they will be subject to discipline, if they know about bullying behavior and fail to do anything about it. The Howard University policy makes this clear. Executive Order #39 of the Mayor of Nashville does the same. I show the importance of this in “Two Scandals that Offer Lessons Regarding Workplace Bullying.” <https://www.workerscompensation.com/expert-analysis/two-scandals-that-offer-lessons-regarding-workplace-bullying/>   

Conclusion 

Penn State is the 9^th largest employer in Pennsylvania as of 2024*. Yet, it does not have the policy to address foreseeable problems that universities in Virginia, Tennessee, Utah, California, and Minnesota and some other states have.  It is a surprising short-coming. 

Lack of such a policy may be a problem for your company, agency, charity, or school. If you have more than a few dozen employees, check it out.  There is plenty of free guidance on creating an anti-bullying policy and what to include. I and others have written on this. 

I thank the PSU Office of General Counsel for responding to my question even though the State Right to Know Law exempts PSU (and Pitt and Temple) from most of its requirements. 

(*) <per https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/dli/documents/cwia/products/top-50-emp-ind/pagovcom_1000.pdf> 

Share This Article: