Just in case you thought university offices that investigate “bias incidents” are using their better judgment to ignore idiotic complaints … well, you can guess where this is going.
Robby Soave at Reason picks out many ludicrous incidents that got a serious, speech-chilling, arguably unconstitutional response at the University of Oregon, as listed in its Bias Response Team’s annual report.
Here are some taken straight from the report:
An anonymous student reported that a newspaper gave less press coverage to
trans students and students of color.
Bias Type: Ethnicity, Race, Political Affi liation
Response: A BRT Case Manager held an educational conversation with the
newspaper reporter and editor.
Is this student too afraid to go to the Daily Emerald office (that’s my guess for which “newspaper” this was) and pitch them an actual story about transgender and minority students? (Look at all the search results for “transgender” this year.)
A student reported that a sign encouraging cleaning up after oneself was sexist.
Response: A BRT Advocate met with the reporter and empowered them to
contact Housing staff. A BRT Case Manager followed up to ensure that the sign was
removed, and the program staff had an educational conversation about the issue.
The University of Oregon actually took action against hygiene. (As a native Oregonian I’m actually not surprised.)
Anonymous staff members reported that another staff member asked a coworker
inappropriate questions and did not refer to them correctly.
Bias Type: Gender Identity/Expression
Location: Campus Dining
Response: A BRT Case Manager contacted the appropriate supervisor, who
checked in with the target of these incidents and held a professional development
conversation with the coworker.
As Soave writes, “Can you imagine being approached by your supervisor and told that university administrators were looking into your alleged mistreatment—mistreatment you never reported, and may not have even considered to be mistreatment in the first place?”
Reminder to university officials: Even opening an investigation into constitutionally protected speech can be ruled an impermissible infringement on speech.
The investigations get worse. Read Soave’s column to learn more.