Free speech advocates have warned of the rise of the Bias Response Team, and the results in the 85 incidents investigated by the University of Oregon’s BRT could explain why.
They “will come as a shock to anyone who mistakenly believes that universities do an adequate job of protecting free expression on campus,” writes Robby Soave for The Daily Beast.
Incidents from the University of Oregon include a brief description, bias type, location, and response.
According to the BRT website, bias can be a “physical, spoken, and/or written act,” and can be unintentional. The site describes bias that could affect “a marginalized identity whether real or perceived” based on:
- Race
- Ethnicity
- National origin
- Sex
- Sexual orientation
- Gender identity or expression
- Physical or mental (dis)ability
- Political or religious ideology
- Socio-ecoonmic status
- Size
- Age
As one example explains, “a student reported that a sign encouraging cleaning up after oneself was sexist. A BRT Manager followed up to ensure the sign was removed.”
A person who took offense at something is apparently reason enough to take a sign down.
Another student reported “a professor [who] wrote an insulting comment on their online blog.” The BRT “met with the reporter, and a BRT Case Manager held a professional development conversation with the professor.”
Reporters can detail an incident anonymously like they can at other universities.
“An anonymous student reported that a newspaper gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color.” In response, a “BRT Case Manager held an educational conversation with the newspaper reporter and editor.”
A “more objective chronicler might call it the university trying to intimidate a student-run press into making editorial changes,” Soave wrote.
Soave noted the “summaries are vague, and it often isn’t clear what exactly was reported.”
While “some of these occurrences were serious, and merited administrative follow-up,” Soave wrote that “the BRT doesn’t distinguish between harassment and hurt feelings: it routinely intervenes, regardless of the severity of the infraction.”
BRTs might infringe upon First Amendment rights. Universities “do not have the right to bully their impolite students;” instead, “students and faculty members enjoy broad First Amendment protections. And if they are afraid to speak their minds, the dialogue on campus will suffer,” he wrote.
Soave is not advocating for “rude and hostile students… liv[ing] free of consequences.” He suggests to “let their friends and neighbors shame them. It may even be appropriate to teach them to change their views,” but should be in the classroom where “a beneficial exchange of ideas can take place.”
Soave takes a similar view to the University of Northern Colorado’s BRT, which suggests speaking up. When such a tactic is used, “everyone walks away better informed” as Soave writes.
