When William & Mary launched its bias reporting website last fall, commentators across the country denounced it for the intolerant, censorious endeavor that it was. Of particular note was William & Mary law professor William Van Alstyne's condemnation of the system:

The irony of the rule is that it is NOT a rule that (simply) disallows acts of intimidation (whether of a particular faculty member, of an identified student, or of an identified employee at the College). Rather, it is a purely "touchy-feely" "political correctness" rule. If, but only if, the individual is "harassing" another person or "intimidating" another person FROM SOMETHING THE COLLEGE REGARDS AS AN UNACCEPTABLE KIND OF "BIAS," THEN they are subject to be reported, placed on some kind of "list," and referred to some other body for possible suspension or worse.

[...]

These politically-"skewed" codes of conduct are seriously misguided (and, I think, frankly embarrassing to universities which endlessly contrive to take the "correct" stance on all sorts of matters.....)

And, of course, such conformity sends exactly the wrong message.

Consider the University of Mary Washington. Having correctly understood what it takes to be a cutting edge campus when it comes to combatting the dire and ubiquitous problem of "bias," Mary Washington is implementing a bias reporting website (download the draft policy here).

How does the university do the doublethink required to justify such an endeavor? A simple two-step does the trick.

Step One: Misread the William & Mary debacle, and then cast your own institution as learning from the other's mistakes. The local newspaper played right into this one when it noted that "If adopted, UMW's plan would parallel anti-bias rules recently put in place at the University of Virginia and the College of William & Mary. And by requiring complainants to identify themselves, it would avoid one goof that William & Mary made when it initially let students tattle anonymously, inviting false reports."

But the problem with the program at William & Mary isn't that it was initially open to anonymous reports--the problem is the program itself. Public colleges and universities can't legally get into the business of investigating protected speech. But that's what these sites are all about.

Step Two: Expand the definition of potentially aggrieved groups to include those that are normally not a part of such programs. Whereas most schools define bias as something that afflicts historically oppressed groups, Mary Washington has added a significant category to its definition: "The University considers acts of bias on the basis of race, color, religion, disability, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, sexual orientation, gender, or age to be unacceptable and antithetical to its commitments to diversity, inclusiveness and the right of every individual to be treated with dignity and respect." If you are well-versed in the campus culture wars, you will recognize the mention of "political affiliation" as a nod in the direction of conservatives--and hence an attempt to cast the bias policy as something that serves everyone in the campus community.

All in all, the assumption seems to be that the public is too dumb to know a speech code when it sees one. Mary Washington seems to think that it can amaze students, faculty, and staff into accepting and enabling its surveillance system with the reassuring news that the college draws the line at investigating anonymous reports. And, indeed, local news coverage confirms that sorry assumption when it says that Mary Washington is "off to a good start."

The university also seems to think that the public is too crass to condemn a speech code that is more ideologically inclusive than usual--hence the addition of "political affiliation" to the list of categories vulnerable to biased assault.

But speech codes aren't amenable to tinkering and refinement. A speech code is still a speech code even if it presumes to have some standards. And speech codes don't suddenly become okay if they attempt something like a bipartisan approach to campus censorship.

Just look at Mary Washington's proposed Bias Offense Policy and see for yourself:

To ensure an environment that fosters civility and mutual respect for members of the University community, bias offenses are prohibited. A bias offense is any act of bias based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, disability, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, sexual orientation, gender, or age that creates an intimidating and/or hostile educational , living, or working environment by unreasonably or substantially interfering with an individual or group's safety and security OR which unreasonably interferes with the person's work or academic performance. Acts include language and/or behaviors. Bias offenses may result in serious sanctions or disciplinary action.

What I would like to see: Someone filing a bias complaint against the bias reporting system itself.