The University of Oregon’s Bias Response Team recently released its annual report, and the things people actually reported — as well as the actions the school actually took in response — are even more ridiculous than you’d think.
For example: According to the document, one student reported that a sign instructing students to clean up after themselves was “sexist,” a BRT member “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.”
(I have no idea why the school would ever think that the students would need a sign to remind them to clean up after themselves. After all, they can clearly handle day-to-day problems on their own!)
Unfortunately, this isn’t even the worst of it. Sure, the sign actually being removed seems pretty damn ridiculous to me, but at least the student who reported the incident actually offered his or her name — giving the BRT member the opportunity to talk to the student and encourage him or her to contact the appropriate people about the problem. You know, like an adult.
Seeing as the reports can also be made anonymously, however, this is not always the case. For example, one student anonymously complained that the school newspaper “gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color,” and BRT actually talked to the newspaper’s editor about it.
I mean, are we serious here? An anonymous complaint that you don’t like the content of a newspaper? What? Hey, here’s an idea: How about, if you think there aren’t enough articles in the paper about something, why don’t you try writing one?
#share#Perhaps the worst example, however, was one complaint that was reported by someone who wasn’t even involved in the “offense,” but simply witnessed it:
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.
Could you imagine being forced to sit and have a discussion with your supervisor to discuss an “offensive” comment that you didn’t even report or request to discuss? Perhaps this “victim” hadn’t even been offended in the first place at all!
Of course, maybe this person was offended. And maybe that “clean up after yourself” sign really was so sexist that it needed to be removed. I doubt it, but I didn’t actually see it, so I can’t really say for sure.
As Reason’s Robby Soave explains:
The bias summaries don’t include all the details. It may certainly be the case that some of these incidents were truly concerning, and that the BRT provided a worthwhile resource. But there’s something positively Orwellian about vesting administrators—not faculty, but administrators—with the responsibility to tell students what they should and shouldn’t say. These “conversations” the BRT sponsors reflect a massive power imbalance between students and administrators, since the administrators appear to have the authority to punish the students.
Orwellian indeed. And what’s more, how in the hell is this any way to prepare students for the real world? You know, the place where you have to deal with problems on your own? The place where these students are going immediately after college?
#related#Of course, there should be ways for students to seek help from administrators or faculty if they are facing something serious on campus. But here’s the thing: There already are and always have been. This is beyond overkill. It threatens free speech, it infantilizes students, and what’s more, could even lead to additional problems if some students decide to use the anonymous nature of the forms just to cause trouble for another student that they don’t like.