Bucking a nationwide trend, the University yesterday revised its Acts of Intolerance policy in an attempt to blend free-speech principles into a campus environment designed to minimize racial and sexual harassment.

"We're explicitly recognizing that First Amendment protections extend to members of the University community," said Pat Peterson, the University's assistant vice president for Campus Life.

"Students don't drop their constitutional rights at the campus gate," she said.

But some individuals believe the revision condones slurs against racial and ethnic minorities and the gay community -- slurs that they say could lead to violence.

The policy, published yesterday, states that the University has "a mandate to address problems of a society deeply ingrained with bias and prejudice."

But it acknowledges that policy enforcement cannot "impose disciplinary sanctions upon . . . expression when it is otherwise in compliance with University regulations."

A specific list of punishable acts was excluded from the revision because different offenses warrant different reactions, Peterson said.

"You have to use the reasonable-person philosophy here," she said. "You can't bring charges against somebody for just plain annoying you. It has to be some noticeable level of seriousness."

Previous versions of the clause did not mention free speech.

In revising the policy, the University also eliminated the definition of harassment from its Acts of Intolerance statement "so that it doesn't equate intolerance with harassment," Peterson said.

Harassment, now listed under a separate code of conduct, includes subjecting a group or individual to physical harm or alarming them of that threat.

Leola Johnson, an assistant professor of journalism who teaches a course on minorities in the media, said she worries the revisions might eventually create an environment conducive to racist acts.

"Is a call for the extermination of gays in a period when gays are the object of serial murderers -- is that just an act of speech?" Johnson asked. "It's not just an act of pure speech. I think it's terrorism."

Norman Eric Bigelow, a spokesman for the student Black Caucus, said he worried that such a policy might encourage verbally abusive people on to violence.

"If we can stop it on a verbal level, it's easier on everybody involved," he said last night, acknowledging the difficulty of the issue. "It's a Catch-22; you can't censor, but you have to prevent verbal assault."

Peterson said she hopes misconceptions about bigotry will be cleared up by the new policy.

"People were thinking that intolerance per se was punishable," she said. "It's offensive, but not an offense."

Johnson, however, said even if no immediate effects become visible, the attitude the new policy represents could be frightening.

"In and of itself, this doesn't increase the danger of underrepresented groups on this campus," she said. "But it shows underrepresented groups the limits of what the University is willing to do on their behalf."

Administrators made the revisions after two incidents last year divided the University community and highlighted a question colleges across the country are grappling with: What constitutes free speech?

"We would like colleges to take a stand and say whether they disapprove of things or not, but not to go as far as to repress ideas," said Doreena Wong, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia.

Last March, James Whitehead, a sophomore, sent a message over Penn State's international BITNET computer network advocating the killing of homosexuals.

Though University officials contacted Whitehead even as a flurry of outrage against his act surfaced, attorneys for Penn State decided the message was protected by the First Amendment.

However, University President Bryce Jordan last May ordered Whitehead's computer privileges revoked.

"Mr. Whitehead said he felt we should nuke these people," Bigelow said. "If that doesn't incur violent tendencies, I don't know what does."

Jeff McCarty, co-director of the Lesbian and Gay Student Alliance, said yesterday the University had little choice in the revision because new policy simply upholds existing laws.

"You can't agree or not agree with it," he said. "Whether you like it or not, that's what the law is. It'll work in our favor next time."

At the beginning of October, Phi Gamma Delta fraternity, 319 N. Burrowes Rd., held a Rosh Hashana theme social with Zeta Tau Alpha, 2 Ritner, a sorority with Jewish members. Several "Fiji" members appeared at the event wearing nametags with traditionally Jewish surnames. One tag bore the name of "Himmler," a Nazi leader.

Though the University issued no sanction against the fraternity, the Interfraternity Council ordered Fiji to suspend social activities and hold educational programs about anti-Semitism.

By recognizing that offensive speech is sometimes unpunishable, Penn State reduces chances it might be sued for limiting First Amendment freedoms --a fate that has befallen many major public universities in the last few years.

Probably the most widely publicized case was that of Tufts University in Medford, Mass., which divided its suburban Boston campus into what students dubbed "free speech zones."

After Tufts suspended, then reinstated, a student selling T-Shirts that listed 15 reasons "Why Beer Is Better than Women at Tufts" administrators banned such forms of expression in shared spaces like classrooms and libraries.

The school rescinded the policy last October after widespread student outcry.

"Campuses passing policies restricting speech don't accomplish anything," Wong said. "It's not going to further any of the goals in terms of exposing students to different viewpoints."

Other attempts at reducing intolerance on the college campus have caused concern that free speech is being limited.

-- At the University of California, administrators can discipline students who use "fighting words" -- defined as any form of expression "inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction whether or not it actually does so."

-- The University of Wisconsin last September began enforcing a rule which made punishable any words that "create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education."

Ideas or words not directly aimed at an individual are protected under that policy.

-- A rule at the University of Michigan that punished students who posted racially derogatory fliers in public places or told ethnic jokes in public forums was ruled unconstitutional last August by a federal district judge.

"A lot of institutions are doing hasty, sloppy work," Peterson said.

"Michigan ended up being so repressive that people felt they couldn't speak openly on issues, even in the classroom," she said. "There, more than anywhere else, free speech needs to be protected."