News Ticker

University Takes Campus ‘Offensive’ Speech Reporting App National

ILLUSTRATION: Truthdig.com

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), at least 231 colleges and universities have created Bias Response Teams (BRTs). BTRs are collectives of administrators, faculty and other college officials. They have jurisdiction over the speech of least 2.84 million students, according to a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

For a few years now, BRTs have been encouraging students to anonymously report offensive speech to administrators and campus police. This is fundamentally an extension of the Department of Homeland Security’s “see something, say something” domestic spying program. In other words, if someone sees something strange or sees someone acting suspiciously, they are encouraged to report it to law enforcement.

Schools and campus BRT police also utilize a method involving Mental Health/Threat Assessments and Campus Response Teams to create detailed reports on every student. According to FIRE, BRTs keep details of students’ smoker status, shape, intellectual perspective, political affiliation, etc.

Once a student’s speech is reported, university officials investigate. If the panel concludes it was biased speech, he or she could be “sanctioned by the administration,” though it’s not clear what that means.

Image result for thought police

“It’s difficult to know” how students are punished, the author of the report, Adam Steinbaugh, told USA TODAY College, because few colleges release information about their investigations into reported bias incidents. And those that do release information tend to only publish vague reports. “Often, a college will simply say that they provided an ‘educational’ response or performed an ‘investigation.’”

Now, the University of Utah has taken the BRT thought-police model to a national level with a new mobile app that includes everyone — not just students — in this sick game.

According to what appears to be a University of Utah press release published by PHYS.org, the new app allows anyone to report strangers who exercise their First Amendment rights.

Where in our Constitution does it say that it is acceptable to report someone who has not committed a crime?

“The first of its kind, the app accepts reports beyond crimes captured in police records. Users from around the country can document all kinds of incident types, from derogatory epithets written in bathrooms to slurs yelled from a car window in addition to violent assaults,” the release states.

How about flipping somebody off? Is that hate speech? What somebody frowns at you, or gives a dirty look, or if the neighbor’s dog barks at you? Gone are the days when Americans were unafraid to voice their opinions or make snide comments in public.

“The major problem we’re dealing with is that hate crimes are so underreported, not only to police, but from police to the federal government,” said Emily Nicolosi, researcher, and Richard Medina, professor of geography. Nicolosi helped develop the app.

Her sidekick opined, “We’d like to see it used nationally to get better hate incident statistics, and to understand why, how, and where people are active in hateful incidents, and how that offends or hurts people,” said Medina.

The university claims that all reporting is confidential and anonymous for the snitch. Unlike in a court of law involving legitimate justice, you will never know your accuser. This opens the way for non stop doxxing and hoaxes. It is carte blanche for implementing star chamber justice.


Read “A Wave of LGBTQ Hate Crime Hoaxes Engulfs Portland”

The Hate Incident Reporting app asks triggered SJWs to submit their location in a photo or video of the so-called bias incident. It also asks them to classify it “out of multiple types of bias: religion, disability, gender, identity, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and other.” The detailed descriptions of the offender are passed on to to law enforcement.

A sampling of “bias incidents” include:

  • A student was offended when another student created a meme suggesting heterosexual people have poor taste in interior design.
  • A white student asked an African-American student if he could rap, which the black student saw as racial bias.
  • After a midnight snowball fight, a group of young men were reported discussing how un-athletic some of the female students throwing snowballs at them were.

Stupid College Pranks Labeled as Bias Hate Speech

Virginia Tech students reported penis graffiti to police for being biased.

College dorm whiteboard dick pic
Drawing on a whiteboard outside of a dorm room. Some colleges have since banned whiteboards.

A torrent of penis drawings in different locations across the Virginia Tech campus last fall drew numerous bias complaints from students, leaving university administrators grappling for answers as to whether the university had been targeted by a penis-drawing bandit.

According to bias incident reports obtained by The College Fix through a public records act request, a total of 45 total bias reports were filed with the university in the fall 2018 semester. The public university also charged The College Fix $390 to fulfill the open records act request.

Of those reports, five complained of penis drawings and a sixth was over someone who accused another student on a whiteboard of never having “eaten a dick.” What’s more, of the 45 bias reports filed last semester, more than half – 25 – were related in some way to dorm whiteboards, public graffiti, or other campus signage.

It seems the campus BRT spent a great deal of time policing phrases and images drawn on dorm-room doors with dry-erase pens. Accordingly whiteboards are being banned.

2 Comments on University Takes Campus ‘Offensive’ Speech Reporting App National

  1. For the younger among us: “Within a month of the nation being attacked by terrorists, legislation that combated terrorism by suspending constitutional guarantees of free speech was championed by a popular leader. It was called the “Decree on the Protection of People and State,” and it passed despite the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians.

    A new national agency was formed within a year that coordinated police and federal security. It consolidated unprecedented power under one leader. No, this is not President Bush’s newly won Department of Homeland Security—it was Hitler’s Office of Fatherland Security, the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and Schutzstaffel, better known simply as the SS.”

    So who are the NAZI’s here, the busybodies which make up the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and their Bias Response Teams (BRTs), or students practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech?

    Let us review our first amendment to the constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this:
Secured By miniOrange