Alumni groups ask Supreme Court to take up case challenging bias response teams

By Jennifer Kabanny

The College Fix

September 25, 2023


Free speech alumni groups have asked the Supreme Court to take up a case that seeks to render campus bias response teams unconstitutional.

Several members of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance recently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on behalf of Speech First, which sued Virginia Tech over its bias response team but lost the case at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in May.


Attorneys for the Alumni Free Speech Alliance argued the case is too important to let the Fourth’s ruling stand — especially given that other circuits have ruled against bias response teams, creating the need to resolve the splits and “set one common standard for First Amendment rights across the country.”


“The situation at Virginia Tech is not unique. Over the past decade, under a variety of names, bias response systems have exploded onto campuses across the country,” the petition states. “This is neither a passing fad nor an example of a single, outlier university. Thus, whether bias response systems chill constitutionally protected speech is of significant national importance and justifies a claim on the Court’s time.”


The petition cites reporting done by The College Fix in the spring regarding Maxient, a company that manages more than 1,300 higher education institutions’ student behavior records, including bias reports.


“When it comes to bias response systems, it does not matter that the people administering such systems cannot directly sanction students; the process is the punishment,” the petition states. “This is particularly true where, as in many cases, bias response systems create secret or semi-secret records that students reasonably fear could impact their ability to obtain letters of recommendation, get jobs or promotions at their university, or get them labeled as troublemakers.”


“…Students may reasonably fear that bias response reports may have an adverse impact on all manner of future university activities, from obtaining letters of recommendation or jobs to increasing the risk and severity of collateral disciplinary proceedings.”


In the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, the majority argued that because Virginia Tech’s bias response system does not directly punish students, who are only asked to participate in the re-education process, they are not unconstitutional.


But the petition frequently cites the dissent in the Fourth Circuit’s 2-1 ruling by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who pointed out that when “the stated goal of the bias response team is to ‘eliminate’ bias, we are faced not with a gentle effort to convince students to be unbiased but with a systemic effort to coercively drive out views that strike administrators the wrong way.”


The petition argues the case “presents important and urgent questions that should be addressed now. Bias response systems serve as de facto speech codes that permit administrators to chill free speech based on their own biases and subjective interpretations of what constitutes ‘bias.'”


The members of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance that have petitioned the Supreme Court are: the University of California Free Speech Alliance, the Cornell Free Speech Alliance, Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse, the Generals Redoubt, Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, the Jefferson Council for the University of Virginia, the MIT Free Speech Alliance, Princetonians for Free Speech, and the UNC Alumni Free Speech Alliance.


Alumni groups ask Supreme Court to take up case challenging bias response teams | The College Fix

Challenging One-Sided Discourse and A Call for Academic Integrity

15 May, 2024
Annie Hirshman '24 May 15, 2024 Last year, I took a Political Science course with a certain professor. This was not uncommon for me, as I am a Political Science major. However, for students of different majors, this particular course was required in order to obtain a liberal arts degree from Davidson College. Therefore, this class serves as a lot of students' sole exposure to the political science department. I was in the classroom with a variety of individuals, ranging from the Phi Delt jocks to the studio art majors. This classroom had everything and everyone. Since this was the first time a lot of them had taken a political science course, the dialogue and discourse was somewhat quieter. Therefore, I felt encouraged to speak up in class. I participated often, sharing my opinion on daily issues and historical events that had shaped American politics. I hoped that my voice would encourage others to participate. Sharing my opinion took a turn for the worse on a certain Wednesday morning. As the semester progressed, I noticed that the teacher was only sharing liberal skewed media sources. When they would discuss conservative matters, it had a negative connotation. They often referred to Republican politicians as a whole using derogatory terms, almost asserting that one bad apple was synonymous with the bunch. I discussed what occurred within the classroom numerous times outside, especially with my classmates that were rather conservative. They spoke of how they felt alienated in class, frightened at the outcome if they were to share their opinion. As a natural-born extrovert and rather excited by the idea of questioning the professor, I spoke up. I asked them why they chose to share only liberal-based news sources and strayed from conservative outlets in their journalistic sources. Their answer was short and sweet: because they were the only accurate sources to garner information from. I was shocked and severely taken aback by their statement. Later that day, the professor followed up with an email ‘defending’ their position. Without their intent, they confirmed that they do not “explicitly seek to include conservative outlets”. They spoke of how there was an ongoing movement to tar outlets that were not relatively conservative. They continued that accurate news sources were under attack for liberal alignment when in reality (their opinion), they were honest and true. The professor asserted that Republican politicians were guilty of executive aggrandizement for these efforts. In addition, they asserted that sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shown to have a very limited liberal bias, if any. As someone who seeks to challenge my own and other’s beliefs, I did some research to see if these statements were accurate or not. I checked multiple sources to see which sources were actually ideologically skewed. The Allsides Media Bias Chart, which collects its information based upon multi-partisan scientific analysis, including expert panels and surveys of thousands of everyday Americans, provided convincing material. It asserted that the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post all skew left to the same extent that The Wall Street Journal skewed right. In addition, I analyzed the Ad Fontes Chart. In order to analyze their data and rate their sources, their methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist analysts. All analysts must hold a bachelor’s degree, while most hold a graduate degree and about one-third have obtained a doctoral degree. It argues that the Wall Street Journal is on the “skews right” section while the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN are on the “skews left” section. The fact that Davidson supports a professor that only teaches one side is sad but not shocking. This is an ongoing issue at this college. I know for a fact that I am not the sole student who feels this way. Teachers are supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think. Through supporting professors that promote a one-sided discourse, that statement is contradicted daily. Considering that the college routinely refers to the “Davidson Experience” in a positive way, I can’t believe that this is what they have in mind. At the end of the day, solely teaching one side is indoctrination. Davidson, coming from a student who admires and cherishes you, please do better so future generations of students feel both free and encouraged to speak their mind, even if it is different than the majority. Annie Hirshman is a 2024 Graduate of Davidson College with a degree in Political Science.

Why I Ended the University of Chicago Protest Encampment

07 May, 2024
Students demanded that we side against Israel, violating the core principle of institutional neutrality.

The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida

03 May, 2024
Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.
Show More
Share by: