A Bias Response Team Evades Justice at the Supreme Court

The Justices avoid issuing a judgment on a case against college speech reporting at Virginia Tech.

The Editorial Board

The Wall Street Journal

March 5, 2024  6:15PM ET


The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t hear a challenge to Virginia Tech’s old system of soliciting anonymous speech complaints via an official bias response team. Instead the Justices declared the case moot, after the college’s president told them the policy had been discontinued, while also promising—he swears—not to revive it. 


Good for Hokies, but as a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas says, failing to answer the legal question leaves the First Amendment up for grabs at other schools. Speech First, which brought the Virginia Tech case, “estimates that over 450 universities have similar bias-reporting schemes,” Justice Thomas writes, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. “Yet, because of the split among the Courts of Appeals, many of these universities face no constitutional scrutiny, simply based on geography.”


The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Virginia Tech’s policy didn’t chill protected expression, because its Bias Intervention and Response Team, or BIRT, lacked power to punish students. Justice Thomas is skeptical.


“The university officials may call in the accused student—whom the policy pre-emptively labels as the ‘perpetrator,’” he says. The BIRT can refer students for discipline. “And, of course, every report—regardless of whether the team determines bias exists—is recorded and kept on permanent file.”


His opinion includes some examples of what happens when all of a campus is urged to submit anonymous tips about “bias.” One report was on male students who were privately “talking crap” about the women playing in a snowball fight, “calling them not ‘athletic.’” Another report concerned a room white board on which someone “observed the words Saudi Arabia.”


No context? No problem. Virginia Tech advertised the BIRT with a chirpy slogan: “If you see something, say something!” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, dissenting in the Fourth Circuit, imagined a 19-year-old student deciding whether to speak up in a class debate on a controversial topic. “She thought she had an insightful comment to add to the discussion,” he wrote, “but it might not be worth risking an encounter with the bias response team.”


Virginia Tech President Timothy Sands told the High Court that the BIRT was terminated last summer under a new dean of students. He said the decision “was not prompted by the Speech First lawsuit.” Justice Thomas says that other universities “have attempted a similar maneuver, but two Courts of Appeals have found that these policy changes did not moot Speech First’s challenges.”


Since the case won’t be heard, the Justices vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, to keep it from setting precedent. Yet the frustrating outcome remains: For now, at least, overbroad college bias teams at schools not named Virginia Tech can go about their creepy business.

         

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: