On Jan. 8, the chancellor’s office sent out an e-mail regarding the launch of the Report Bias Web site.
The site allows members of the campus community to report “any demeaning, derogatory or otherwise offensive behavior directed toward any individual on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or other group characteristics.”
Sound brilliant and judicious? Let us consider the matter in depth.
The Web site contains an online form where anyone can report incidents of bias. Contrary to the released statement, anyone with Internet access (regardless of university affiliation) can file a report ““ from anywhere on the globe. The form does not require users to make a statement regarding their identity, which makes it unbelievably easy to make false accusations (particularly against people you dislike) with absolute impunity. While we doubt that someone from Tanzania or Finland would care to file a false report, this does bring up the question of accountability.
Another issue arises with the actions taken after these reports. The Student Affairs office acts only on “behavior or conduct, not language,” because the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression. In which case, if consequences only result from a violation of the law, shouldn’t the proper authorities ““ namely the police ““ be notified in such occasions? What, then, is the efficacy of reporting such incidences?
The office goes on to declare the initiative a matter of education ““ to better promote improved social and professional conduct with future programming. This reasoning yet again fails to provide the grounds for existence of the Web site: Why is there a need for the Student Affairs office to educate and to mediate free speech, a right which is already enshrined in the First Amendment? It is not the role of the office to meddle in the affairs of free expression.
We would even understand and approve if the Web site were meant as a public relations move, but as such, it is poorly executed. There’s a lack of internal communication and immense disorganization in the structuring and realization of the project. Some office personnel were oblivious to its existence when contacted about the program. On top of that, the Student Affairs office lacks the resources to handle any significant volume of complaints, turning the Web site into a veritable black hole for reports.
We are then left with a brazen question: What is the point of all this?
In these trying times, when the UCLA community should be cutting redundancies and not adding to them, the Report Bias Web site exhibits a lack of social awareness which verges on irresponsibility. This board implores the administration to be more cognizant of what our institution needs, before jumping into ultimately futile undertakings.