Here's a post I was working on yesterday:

New York Times ethics columnist Randy Cohen recently reprinted a troubling and suggestive letter from a Georgia student:

"Our university requires us students to write anonymous evaluations of our professors. On one evaluation, a student made derogatory comments about a professor's sexual orientation. The university hired a handwriting expert to confirm the identity of the culprit so punishment could be administered. The university claims the student broke the code of conduct, but if anonymity was promised, is this investigation ethical? - S.C., GEORGIA"

Cohen rightly notes that the university is wrong to investigate students in this manner: "Even if a student violated its code of conduct by making a homophobic slur,"he notes, "for the university to abandon its pledge of anonymity is a cure worse than the disease." He reflects that universities lose a great deal when they violate students' trust, including access to the information provided in course evaluation forms.

True. But what's lost in such behavior is far more than administrative access to student information--what's lost is the foundation of learning itself. Free inquiry can't thrive in an atmosphere of intimidation, surveillance, and distrust. And as obnoxious as one student's tasteless misuse of an anonymous evaluation form might be, it pales in comparison to the university's willingness to trample on that student's expressive rights in the name of sensitivity.

Universities should not be in the business of policing--or punishing--student speech. Nor should they be in the business of effectively spying on students. Troublingly, though, they are.

Last fall, William & Mary made headlines when word got out about its new "Bias Reporting Website." The College encouraged members of the campus community to file reports on "bias incidents," which it defined as "harassment, intimidation or other hostile behavior that is directed at a member of the William and Mary community because of that person's race, sex (including pregnancy), age, color, disability, national or ethnic origin, political affiliation, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status. A bias incident may be verbal (whether spoken or written) or physical." So broad was the definition, and so ominous the promise to investigate all complaints, that one could only conclude that W&M was in the business of implementing a police state in which people's right not to be offended trumped all other concerns.

Lots and lots of criticism came William & Mary's way, pointing out that Orwellian tattling arrangements are not only bad for the academic climate, but a violation of the First Amendment to which W&M is bound. The episode was a great embarrassment for the College, which subsequently modified its bias reporting system--but did not do away with it. And of course it didn't. W&M is not alone in using such websites to create a chilling atmosphere of intimidation on campus. Plenty of other schools have them, too--including Georgetown, UCLA, the University of Delaware, the University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, and the University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign.

When schools across the country are encouraging students to spy on one another; when they urge students to participate in a system of surveillance that is ultimately aimed at curbing and punishing student speech; when they place politically correct comportment above free exchange--then they have made an untenable commitment to "ferreting out" those members of the campus community who do not conform to institutional orthodoxy. In this context, it's not at all surprising to learn of a school sparing no expense to track down and punish students who anonymously cross the school's expressive line. Nor is it surprising to see the confusion of college students who can no longer trust themselves to know when their schools are subjecting them to unethical treatment.

The bottom line: Georgia was way, way, way out of line on multiple fronts. And the point: There's no longer any point in being surprised, or outraged, or appalled, or shocked, or, conversely, skeptical or quizzical or dismissive. We know what campuses are doing to individual rights, and we learn more every day about the tactics they use. It's a waste of energy and time to have conniption fits about it, or to try to argue that each case is an anomaly that proves nothing. That energy and time are far better spent exposing the problem and fighting it, both in the marketplace of ideas and in the courts.