UNLV speech code proves political correctness still runs amok on campus

“I hate bigots.”

“I will not tolerate intolerance.”

Now, would the utterance of words like these on the UNLV campus get me in trouble under the current draft of the university’s “Policy on Bias Incidents and Hate Crimes”?

Bigots have feelings, too. Don’t they?

Fortunately, according to Chancellor Jim Rogers, the policy as drafted is dead on arrival. Unfortunately, UNLV President David Ashley said he plans to appoint a four-member task force to redraft the policy.

He said this even though a memo from the Office of the Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion, that would be Christine Clark, says, "On March 24, 2009, after 18 months of development, revision, vetting, and dialogue, the UNLV Policy on Bias Incidents and Hate Crimes was officially approved by President Ashley and adopted by the UNLV campus."

Redrafting this policy would be like trying to Bowdlerize the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Campus speech codes — which this one clearly denies being (“This is not a speech code.”), while emphatically codifying in a 14-page meander what is unacceptable speech — are anathema to free speech. They are superfluous exercises in politically correct jargon meant to silence anyone who dares to question the liberal dogma: All behavior frowned upon by your parents is perfectly OK and there’ll be hell to pay for anyone who deigns to even hint otherwise.

Frankly, the whole thing reads like that refrigerator magnet version of Shakespeare. Key phrases are jumbled together, many repeatedly, to form actual sentences that read like: “To be or not be, those are the slings and arrows dreamt of in your philosophy.”

It could be rewritten to read:

“If you hear something that offends you:
“a) you may report it to your counselor or dean."
“b) you should exercise your right of free speech to tell the oaf where to get off.”
“c) you should just get over it."
“Should you witness an actual crime, report it to the cops.”

The main problem with this bias policy is that the default setting is to call the campus cops, who are then obligated to write up a report, no matter how trivial the complaint. It says that if the complaint does not warrant a police investigation, the report will be referred to the appropriate non-police administrator. It also requires training for investigating “bias incidents and hate crimes.”

A UNLV professor explains in comments appended to Glenn Cook's column on this topic Sunday that the policy is about political correctness, "a system of beliefs which hold a vice-like grip over public debate, deciding what can be debated, what are the terms of the debate, which policies are acceptable and which aren’t. Political correctness classifies certain groups as victims in need of protection from criticism and others as oppressors (white, male, heterosexual) and believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated."

Just ask President Obama's top economic adviser Lawrence Summers, who resigned as president of Harvard University after he speculated women might not have the same math and science aptitude as men.

Let’s let the policy speak for itself. Here is the definition of a bias incident:

“A.  ‘Bias Incidents’ refers to verbal, written, or physical acts of intimidation, coercion, interference, frivolous claims, discrimination, and sexual or other harassment motivated, in whole or in part, by bias based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, creed, sex (including gender identity or expression, or a pregnancy related condition), sexual orientation, national origin, military status or military obligations, disability (including veterans with service-connected disabilities), age, marital status, physical appearance, political affiliation, or on the basis of exercise of rights secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Got that? You can call the campus cops if someone makes a frivolous claim about you exercising your First Amendment rights.

If you think that is rich, wrap your mind around this footnote explaining just what “physical appearance” is covered: “Personal appearance means the outward appearance of any person, irrespective of sex, with regard to bodily condition or characteristics, manner or style of dress, and manner or style of personal grooming, including, but not limited to, hair style and beards. It shall not relate, however, to the requirement of cleanliness, uniforms, or prescribed standards, when uniformly applied to a class of employees, or when such bodily conditions or characteristics, or manner of style of dress or personal grooming presents a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of any individual.”

Don’t you dare discriminate against me because I’m an overweight, aging, gray-haired white male veteran with a handlebar mustache, who wears boots and leather sports coats, but forget to shower? Sic him, guys.

The whole thing is an exercise in self-contradictions, including this blunderbuss of a declaration that “the educational mission of the University requires the need for freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable—in short, the right to dissent.” So long as you display no bias against dunderheaded academics who couldn’t get a real job.

You may challenge the unchallengeable so long as you are being inclusive, of course. And if you retaliate against someone you think has made a frivolous claim against you, that “will not be tolerated.” Everything else must be tolerated, but not that. You can’t give a bad grade or write a letter or deny a promotion, etc.

Just file a claim against everyone in sight and you’ve got it made.

Above all you should know, “Discrimination is illegal.” It says so. If your professor gives you an F in your class and gives someone else an A, that is discrimination. Call the cops.