Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Saturday, April 25, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Related Document
Sun Coverage
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has put UNLV on notice that a proposed policy outlining how members of the university should deal with possible hate crimes and “bias incidents” would squelch free speech on campus.
UNLV is aiming to adopt the policy in July, before the new academic year begins. The Board of Regents, which governs Nevada’s public higher education system, told its schools in June 2008 to develop policies of this type.
The “final” draft of UNLV’s policy defines “bias incidents” as “verbal, written, or physical acts of intimidation, coercion, interference, frivolous claims, discrimination, and sexual or other harassment motivated, in whole or in part, by bias” based on characteristics including actual or perceived race, religion, sex (including gender identity or gender expression or a pregnancy-related condition), physical appearance and political affiliation. Controversial statements that serve to promote intellectual inquiry do not constitute bias incidents under the proposed policy.
The draft encourages people who believe they have run into bias to take actions that could include reporting the incident to a supervisor or the police, vice president of student affairs and vice president of diversity and inclusion.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel of the ACLU of Nevada, said the broad definition of bias incidents includes actions protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as making comments that denigrate somebody’s race or religion. The proposed policy gives the impression, he said, that someone who makes such remarks will be in trouble with the university or the law.
“Are those statements necessarily designed to advance intellectual inquiry? Probably not,” Lichtenstein said. “Are they protected by the First Amendment? Absolutely.”
The ACLU of Nevada has offered to work with UNLV to revamp the policy, and President David Ashley said the university will take the organization’s input. The fourth and most recently available version of the document, dated March 9, says it is the “final version,” but Ashley said it is still a “work in progress.”
Christine Clark, UNLV’s vice president of diversity and inclusion, defended the policy, which she helped develop. She said a close reading makes it clear that the document is designed to encourage free speech, supporting people “in developing the skills and comfort to sustain dialogue on complex and controversial issues over time.”
The March version, sent to faculty leaders last week, outlines “informal” and “formal” processes for handling bias, encouraging victims to use “informal options” first in cases where they do not feel threatened. These options include talking to alleged offenders about what has occurred.
Clark said in cases where people accused of bias have not committed a crime or violated a university code of conduct, the policy does not compel them to participate in dialogue about the perceived bias or take other action.
“Somebody could decide, ‘I don’t want to participate in this conversation. I don’t want to be a part of the mediation ... I don’t want to talk to my colleague about how they were made to feel,’ ” Clark said.
But the ACLU of Nevada is not alone in criticizing the draft. Some faculty leaders who have seen the proposed policy worry about the effect it will have on academic freedom.
Many members of the campus community still remember what happened to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an economics professor who ran into trouble with the university administrators after a student complained that Hoppe had created a hostile class environment by saying that gays are less likely to save for the future in part because they are less likely to have children.
UNLV officials stopped trying to censure Hoppe only after the ACLU took up the professor’s cause.
Bryan Spangelo, a faculty senator and former faculty senate chairman, said the draft of the policy regarding possible hate crimes and bias incidents gives the impression that the police should be the first point of contact for people with serious complaints about bias.
In a section of the document titled “Universal Formal Reporting: Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents,” the UNLV police department is the first agency mentioned. Under the formal reporting process, non-police administrators take over investigation of an accusation of bias only after a police supervisor decides that an incident does not constitute a hate crime.
“The mechanism is alarming,” Spangelo said.
“If someone really has a complaint, they are not going to bother with an informal process. They’re simply going to move to the formal.”
Spangelo said the “nebulous” definition of a bias incident makes the proposed policy “ripe for abuse.”
The formal reporting process the draft outlines calls for bias incidents that do not violate student or employee confidentiality to be documented on the Web site of the Conflict Resolution Network, a campus group made up of individuals whose roles include formal responsibility for some aspect of conflict resolution.
The formal reporting process also states that all bias incidents shall be reported to Clark’s office and the offices of the vice president of student affairs.
John Filler, chairman of the faculty senate, said he asked that the university delay adopting a policy until after the faculty senate has had an opportunity to review a draft at its next scheduled meeting, in August.
This week, however, Ashley said he wanted to have the policy in place before the start of the next academic year. He noted that Clark has worked with faculty leaders to revise the draft, including meeting with the full senate to discuss the issue.
“There has been a reasonable level of consultation and direct input from faculty members who are on the senate,” Ashley said.
Editor's Note: This story has been corrected. An earlier version had the wrong month for when the Board of Regents told its schools to develop the policy.
With all respect to the ACLU, there's a universe of difference between a biased speaker at an event or demonstration on campus and a person who commits acts of bias or---even more egregiously--crimes which are motivated by hatred or bias against students or staff. Speech is protected by the First Amendment--conduct is not. Moreover, the First Amendment only acts to prohibit governmental prior restraint of speech--it does not prohibit persons from being held accountable for the consequences of their speech where appropriate.
LasVegasLawyerGal -- you're a bit on and a bit off on this one.
The First Amendment DOES protect conduct. The threshold question for that point is the definition of "speech" in this context. "Speech" takes many forms. Some of it is bound to be offensive.
But this is academic. UNLV is a state institution and should be bound by the state's version of this liberty, not the federal. The Declaration of Rights Section 9: " Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."
The threshold question then becomes whether or not this liberty was abused. I would interpret that along the lines of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
Clearly bias is within this liberty. The UNLV may be guilty of prior restraint.
This is my real name and I am an Associate Prof. in Life Sciences at UNLV. I personally feel that I have been committed to equal treatment of all. However, I was very concerned at the implementation of the bias policy handed down by the Board of Regents and I attended a meeting chaired by Dr. Chris Clark. In the meeting a number of people, including myself, spoke out against the policy. We had hoped that our concerns may have been addressed. However, when reading the latest draft of the policy they do not seem to have been taken into account. My personal opinion is that Dr. Clark holds views that are not representative of the majority of UNLV students and faculty, and in doing so pushes her own personal agenda, rather than representing the best interests of faculty and students. If one challenges these views their opinions are often met with a liturgy of ist, phobe, or anti sentiments. The policy in itself and the ideals of Dr. Clark create a hostile and intimidating atmosphere where people fear voicing their THOUGHTS for fear of reprisal.
At the meeting I was surprised to hear that the bias incidents is not judged upon the INTENTION of the person involved, but rather by how the complainant PERCEIVED the incident. Basically it is saying if someone takes offense, i.e. if their feelings are hurt, then offense becomes synonymous with harassment or hatred. This leaves the door wide open for misuse and I think that the "bias incidents" may used indiscriminately by some individuals. I also think that such a policy could be misused by students as a tool to obtain higher grades or avoid responsibility for academic misdeeds. This is not about freedom of speech -- this has been lost many years ago at American universities. This is about political correctness and the loss of freedom of OPINION. The ideology of political correctness is not about stopping people calling others horrible names, that is just good manners. Political correctness is a system of beliefs which hold a vice-like grip over public debate, deciding what can be debated, what are the terms of the debate, which policies are acceptable and which aren't. Political correctness classifies certain groups as victims in need of protection from criticism and others as oppressors (white, male, heterosexual) and believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated (Browne, 2006) continued...
continued....I do not believe that this policy will bring EQUAL treatment for all, but will be biased for certain groups. For example, some classes in Women's studies can contain abrasive, if not totally fabricated and hateful speech regarding men (Hoff-Sommers, 1995). If a man is offended by these comments and makes a complaint, I would guarantee that likelihood of investigation of this complaint would be very low. This is because the women have victim status. The last thing that the University wants is the Women's studies Dept. being brought into the limelight and criticized, thus this goes back to political correctness and deciding what can be debated or criticized. In end the male who brought the charges would probably be the one who was considered biased and sexist. If you think that the latter won't happen, it already has. The article discusses Hans Hoppe. Hoppe made a statement to the effect that homosexuals did not save money, but spent indiscriminately because they tended to live riskier lifestyles. This statement offended a gay man and this lead to a prolonged investigation of Hoppe. One of the objections was that Hoppe did not provide citations for such a statement, and was thus expressing his own opinion. At the University of Washington, Prof. Brown, teaching Introduction to Women's studies made a statement that lesbians made better parents than the traditional family. Student Pete Schaub a white heterosexual male asked politely for a citation. His reward for questioning the victim group was to be escorted out of class by police and banned from class (Egan, 1988).
The bias incidents code is meant to protect people and make them feel that they are in a safe environment. I think nothing could be further from the truth. At its simplest this bias code will stifle ideas and open debate, it is in itself discriminatory and intolerant. By accepting these bias incident policies we will curb our student's ability to learn facts correctly and the ability of faculty and students to debate issues in a non-threatening atmosphere. If the police are going to be called in and a written report taken for some incident that someone PERCEIVES as threatening we will be walking on eggshells. When I came to UNLV 13 yrs ago Dr. Harter had a dream, for UNLV to become a premier research university. I feel along with the upcoming budget cuts the loss of freedom of opinion and the fear of police action for innocuous comments is the final nail in the coffin. For those of us that can, we will leave UNLV, and the dream will be lost!
"This is not about freedom of speech -- this has been lost many years ago at American universities."
Iain -- it's not lost unless individuals give in. What you're feeling is the pressure of the herd to conform. Socrates (well, Plato) mentioned this around 399 B.C., so it's not a new concept. I suggest reading some Nietzsche for further enlightenment on that point.
Funny you mentioned Christina Hoff-Sommers. I attended one of her lectures back in the day and she autographed my copy of her book.
I strongly believe that UNLV should be a place of tolerance and civility where ideas flow freely, and people debate the important issues of the day. No one should be subject to intimidation. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the "bias policy" helps UNLV become such a place. Instead, I believe this policy would have a strong chilling effect on free speech, and students and faculty would simply shy away from addressing controversial subjects. Moreover, I believe that it would inhibit genuine communication between people of different groups as individuals would fear that they could unintentionally say something to offend another and suffer grave consequences for doing so. The language of this policy is very broad. The idea that the police would likely become involved in cases where someone misspoke or was misunderstood is extremely frightening and intimidating. President Ashley is quoted as having said that there has been a lot of faculty consultation, but I wonder if the feedback from the faculty has been taken into account. It seems that UNLV is going backwards. Speech codes at other universities throughout the country have either been struck down by the courts or are being eliminated by the members of the university community who initially put them into place. (Actually, I do not understand why the bias policy is needed. There seem to be several mechanisms in place to handle faculty and student misconduct, and discrimination on the basis of sex, race, etc. and hate crimes are illegal.)
Dear KillerB:
I'm sorry, but you can't bring "conduct" within the rubric of the First Amendment just by calling it non-verbal speech. For many reasons, I wish that were the law--but the Rehnquist Court closed off that cul-de-sac a number of years ago in the nude dancer cases (the losing argument was that erotic dancing=artistic expression in the hope that it would make it more difficult for local authorities to regulate such establishments). There's a difference between recognizing that differing groups at a university, from the Klan to the Decemberists, have the right to assemble and speak and decreeing that the university is powerless to intervene when the Klan or the Decemberists start beating up or harassing students who disagree with them.