The Supreme Court Could Weigh In On Whether Colleges’ Speech Police Are Legal

By Brandon Poulter

Daily Caller

October 1, 2023


The Supreme Court could weigh in on the constitutionality of so-called bias response teams at colleges in the U.S., which free speech organizations say are used to discriminate against political viewpoints and to chill free speech.


Bias response teams are systems created to monitor alleged biased speech on college campuses, which often end up with students reporting other students for politically disfavored speech, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Students are then brought before administrators in what can be a long-drawn-out process that discourages students from speaking their minds and expressing disfavored viewpoints, which free speech advocates argue violates the First Amendment.


The Alumni Free Speech Alliance, a group of over a dozen free speech alumni organizations, alleges that bias response teams are used to target individuals and often cause students to self-censor, resulting in less intellectual freedom on campuses. The groups filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of advocate group Speech First, which is suing Virginia Tech over its bias-response team.


“In history, it’s always repressive regimes that pick a scapegoat and sometimes not even with aforethought. It just happens they rile up the crowds against them. And that’s what these bias systems are used for,” Chuck Davis, president of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, told the DCNF.


The number of bias response teams at public and private American colleges and universities was 232, according to FIRE. That number nearly doubled to 456 by 2022, according to Free Speech Alliance.


“The goal of these teams is censorship,” FIRE Program Officer Zach Greenberg, told the DCNF.


“These bias response teams have been used to report on group chats and even by third parties walking by on campus,” Greenberg continued.


By policing the expression of bias, these bias response teams are violating the First Amendment, Greenberg explained. Speech which might be perceived as discriminatory or as an expression of bias, such as political speech or offensive jokes, is protected by the First Amendment.


For example, Gonzaga University, which has a bias response team, defines a bias incident as “non-criminal conduct, speech, or expression” that is motivated by “prejudice” because of “real or perceived characteristics,” according to their website. This then triggers a review of the incident, which may or may not result in an “educational conversation” or referral to another office.


“Being investigated is the punishment,” Eric Rasmusen, former economics professor at UCLA and member of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, told the DCNF.


At one incident at the University of Northern Colorado, a professor challenged his students to read a controversial book with the intent of discussing difficult topics and discussing why they were difficult to talk about, only to be reported to the bias response team for alleged offensive behavior, according to National Review.


“It’s well within the professor’s right to recommend controversial classroom materials,” Greenberg told the DCNF.


In the case of Virginia Tech, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the bias response team was not unconstitutional since it does not directly punish students. Virginia Tech’s bias response team accepts anonymous tips about other students, and once had a website up which said students could report on things from “jokes that are demeaning to a particular group of people” to “hosting a culturally themed party.”


In a separate case regarding Michigan University’s bias response team, Speech First challenged the team’s definitions as being overly broad, according to court documents. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the university’s bias response team was likely to chill speech.


Universities sometimes acknowledge that their bias response system may conflict with the freedom of speech.


“The expression of an idea or point of view some may find offensive or inflammatory is not necessarily a bias-related incident. While this value of openness protects controversial ideas, it does not protect harassment or expressions of bias,” reads Wake Forest University’s bias response system’s website.


“Free speech absolutely protects the expression of bias,” Greenberg told the DCNF.


“In the real world, they’ll encounter hateful speech, and students need to be able to handle that,” Greenberg continued.


The Supreme Court Could Weigh In On Whether Colleges’ Speech Police Are Legal | The Daily Caller

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: