School For Snowflakes: Time To Raze The University Of Central Florida And Sow The Campus With Salt

The problem, unfortunately, is that in this case the relatively unimportant institution may be another indicator of the totalitarian drift of American higher education as a whole.

Three University of Central Florida students asked a court to declare the school’s  discriminatory-harassment policy unconstitutional. All three wanted to express views against abortion, affirmative action and illegal immigration, as well as their opinions on  LGBTQ issues, but said that they dared not to do so  because of the university’s oppressive speech and conduct rules. After the lower court refused to consider the case on procedural grounds, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the speech restrictions.

A junior high school student relatively familiar with the First Amendment could have figured this out. What is terrifying is that such a censorious, viewpoint-restricting piece of anti-democratic poison could have been concocted and enforced on any American campus. The University of Central Florida’s “discriminatory harassment” policy states,

Discriminatory harassment consists of verbal, physical, electronic or other conduct based upon an individual’s race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, non-religion, age, genetic information, sex (including pregnancy and parental status, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation), marital status, physical or mental disability (including learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and past or present history of mental illness), political affiliations, veteran’s status (as protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistant Act), or membership in other protected classes set forth in state or federal law that interferes with that individual’s educational or employment opportunities, participation in a university program or activity, or receipt of legitimately-requested services meeting the description of either Hostile Environment Harassment or Quid Pro Quo Harassment, as defined [below]. Discriminatory harassment may take many forms, including verbal acts, name-calling, graphic or written statements (via the use of cell phones or the Internet), or other conduct that may be humiliating or physically threatening.

The prohibited conduct is then defined as…

Discriminatory harassment that is so severe or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with, limits, deprives, or alters the terms or conditions of education (e.g., admission, academic standing, grades, assignment); employment (e.g., hiring, advancement, assignment); or participation in a university program or activity (e.g., campus housing), when viewed from both a subjective and objective perspective.

Moreover, the policy says that

[i]n evaluating whether a hostile environment exists, the university will consider the totality of known circumstances, including, but not limited to” the following factors:The frequency, nature and severity of the conduct; Whether the conduct was physically threatening;The effect of the conduct on the complainant’s mental or emotional state; Whether the conduct was directed at more than one person;Whether the conduct arose in the context of other discriminatory conduct or other misconduct; Whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with the complainant’s educational or work performance and/or university programs or activities; Whether the conduct implicates concerns related to academic freedom or protected speech.

In addition, the policy’s definition of “Hostile Environment Harassment” goes on to hold…

(1) that “[a] hostile environment can be created by pervasive conduct or by a single or isolated incident, if sufficiently severe,” (2) that “[t]he more severe the conduct, the less need there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the conduct is physical,” and (3) that “an isolated incident, unless sufficiently serious, does not amount to Hostile Environment Harassment.”

 UCF’s Student Handbook also states that “[s]tudents are prohibited” not only from engaging in the prohibited conduct themselves, but also from “[c]ondoning or encouraging acts of harmful behavior as defined [in the discriminatory-harassment policy] or failing to intervene during an act of harmful behavior while it is occurring.” …

The policy also created a “Just Knights Response Team” to provide assistance to those who have witnessed a hate-related or bias-related incident.

The Court concluded,

Nowhere is free speech more important than in our leading institutions of higher learning. Colleges and universities serve as the founts of—and the testing grounds for—new ideas. Their chief mission is to equip students to examine arguments critically and, perhaps even more importantly, to prepare young citizens to participate in the civic and political life of our democratic republic. It’s hardly surprising, then, that the Supreme Court has “long recognized that, given the important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” Accordingly, it is imperative that colleges and universities toe the constitutional line when monitoring, supervising, and regulating student expression. Despite what we presume to be the very best of intentions, it seems to us substantially likely that the University of Central Florida crossed that line here….

Ya think? Never mind “Don’t say gay,” this policy is a “Don’t say anything or else” rule. Eleventh Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus’s concurrence in Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright was more pointed:

History provides us with ample warning of those times and places when colleges and universities have stopped pursuing truth and have instead turned themselves into cathedrals for the worship of certain dogma.

By depriving itself of academic institutions that pursue truth over any other concern, a society risks falling into the abyss of ignorance. Humans are not smart enough to have ideas that lie beyond challenge and debate. A discriminatory-harassment policy that assumes the most popular idea or the idea that least “interferes with, limits, deprives, or alters the terms or conditions of education” is the correct one is plainly at odds with the First Amendment and our notion of free speech.

The University’s discriminatory-harassment policy touches on every conceivable topic that may come up on a college campus. Religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender identity or expression, and genetic information are just a select few targeted by the policy. The specter of punishment for expressing unorthodox views on these topics stifles rigorous intellectual debate. And the harm is not limited to professors and students while they are on campus. Our future civic and scientific leaders surely will take these values with them after graduation.

A university that has placed its highest premium on the protection of feelings or safe intellectual space has abandoned its core mission. The protection of feelings or the creation of safe space rightly might be the foremost goal in some settings, like at a family dinner, but it is not right for a university. Its unambiguous mission must remain the pursuit of truth. John Stuart Mill put it best in his classic work, On Liberty:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.

A university that turns itself into an asylum from controversy has ceased to be a university; it has just become an asylum.

What is notable is that this isn’t the first time this awful school has appeared on the Ethics Alarms radar. Earlier, there were EA posts about a despicable student, the school’s unethical treatment of a professor, and a cheating scandal. The university’s administrators and leadership should be sacked and shamed, of course, but it isn’t enough. This is a bad university, and, like an academic contagion, needs to wiped off the face of the earth in the interests of education, ethics, and American society.

_____________________

Pointer: ABA Journal

Facts: Volokh Conspiracy 1, 2, 3, 4

8 thoughts on “School For Snowflakes: Time To Raze The University Of Central Florida And Sow The Campus With Salt

  1. “This is a bad university, and, like an academic contagion, needs to wiped off the face of the earth in the interests of education, ethics, and American society.”

    Fire up the wood chipper…

  2. A university that turns itself into an asylum from controversy has ceased to be a university; it has just become an asylum.

    This is brilliant writing. Good on Hizzoner.

    This is a bad university, and, like an academic contagion, needs to wiped off the face of the earth in the interests of education, ethics, and American society.

    Ahhh… but how? I am as uncomfortable with any government agent making that decision as I am of the infiltration that allowed it in the first place. I recognize that this line is hyperbole to make a point, but who gets to decide?

    Maybe the people of Florida, I suppose. Let’s see how Disney’s comeuppance works out for DeSantis and legislative Rs, and assuming all is well, maybe they can make a run at the school. But the process DOES need to me small-D democratic.

  3. I’m reminded of a comment by David Mamet: We live in oppressive times. We have, as a nation, become our own thought police; but instead of calling the process by which we limit our expression of dissent and wonder “censorship,” we call it “concern for commercial viability.”

  4. This is what you get when academics, who pride themselves on their intellectual prowess, wind up concocting a document of such verbosity that they cannot even understand that the document itself creates a hostile environment for those they wish to exclude from the favored groups.

  5. When I was about ten, we drove by a freshly paved asphalt parking lot carved out of the pine woods serving a few trailers on our way through the outskirts of Orlando during a family car trip. Always on the lookout for opportunities to make clear to my brother and me that we would go to college, my mother explained the trailers were the new University of Central Florida. So, this would have been in the early 1960s. As of 2021, UCF had a student body of 76,000, including on-line students. What a shame this now behemoth of higher education available to all has gone so far astray. If they weren’t so screwed up, schools like UCF could lead the way in ending “inequitable outcomes” and educating people who shouldn’t be in elite schools by giving perfectly serviceable undergraduate educations to anyone who’s willing to put in the effort. I hope there’s a solution to this problem short of returning UCF to pinewoods. I think public junior colleges and universities should lead the way in providing accessible higher education. Stop sending unqualified kids to elite schools. Let them flourish at places like UCF, sans all the B.S.

    • Also, a high school classmate is a computer science professor at UCF. Avelino is a really smart, super solid guy with a great sense of humor. I’m sure he’s an excellent scholar and teacher. I hope he’s able to do his job at UCF all this baloney notwithstanding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.