53percenter's Blog

A free speech legal group called Speech First filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the University of Michigan. The lawsuit claims the university’s “Bias Response Team” is investigating and punishing constitutionally protected speech based on little more than the feelings of students who claim to be offended. From the Wall Street Journal:

‘The most important indication of bias is your own feelings,” the University of Michigan advises students. It then urges them to report on their peers, anonymously if they prefer, “and to encourage others to report if they have been the target or witness of a bias incident.”

The Bias Response Team is there, ready to investigate and mete out justice. More than 200 American campuses have established similar administrative offices to handle alleged acts of “bias” that violate no law….

Students found responsible for a “bias incident” face discipline, which ranges from training sessions to suspension or expulsion. As for what constitutes bias, that’s vague—unconstitutionally so, argues Speech First. The existence of an offended party can be sufficient to prove “bias.” The team warns potential offenders that bias “may be intentional or unintentional.” Similarly, the student code prohibits “harassment,” which it defines as “unwanted negative attention perceived as intimidating, demeaning or bothersome to an individual.” Here, subjective perception serves as evidence.

What if the expression of a controversial or unpopular opinion bothers someone? Under the University of Michigan’s rules, “the most sensitive student on campus effectively dictates the terms under which others may speak,” Speech First says. Since April 2017, students have reported more than 150 bias incidents. These include complaints about social-media posts, drawings, comments, phone calls and even “intentional item placement”—whatever that means. The Bias Response Team has also investigated speech or other expression even when it occurred off-campus.

So to sum this up, anonymous students are encouraged to report their peers for anything that makes them feel bad, even it was unintentional. This sounds like a recipe for disaster, one that empowers whatever campus snowflake is most eager to claim victimization. That prospect can’t help but result in students who are afraid to speak up about any issue on which they might hold an unapproved thought. Indeed, Speech First is arguing a chilling of free speech has already taken hold on campus:

In light of these policies, Speech First members enrolled at Michigan have abstained from speaking on topics including immigration, identity politics, and abortion because they fear their speech will be anonymously reported as offensive, biased, and/or hateful to university authorities through the bias response system. The complaint alleges that these hopelessly vague policies chill student speech and expression – a clear First Amendment violation…

“Speech codes like Michigan’s flagrantly violate the First Amendment,” said Speech First President Nicole Neily. “Moreover, a bias response system has no place in America, much less on a modern-day college campus. Because it’s impossible to know what comments might be ‘perceived’ by others as offensive, students don’t contribute to conversations and debates, ask questions, write papers, or invite speakers they might otherwise. This is not a real educational experience, and Michigan students deserve better.”

If the lawsuit is successful, it could become a model for similar suits against other schools that have set up bias response teams. Just to give you an idea who some of these students are, last October a group of them attempted to “no-platform” invited speaker Charles Murray. One person shouting over the rest claimed Murray was “killing us” and compared his speech to “ethnic cleansing.” I wonder if this event was reported to the Bias Response Team for investigation.

https://t.co/F1NmtAh0hX

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) October 11, 2017

If you follow the news at all you’re probably familiar with the following scenario. A story hits the news cycle about a police officer, municipal worker or aide to some elected official who has been implicated in or charged with a crime or other questionable activity. You don’t want a person under such circumstances being left on the job if they’re potentially up to no good so they wind up being placed on “administrative leave” and it’s very often paid leave. But what happens after that? Some of these investigations can drag on forever, so what happens to the government employee while that’s going on?

In the city of Boston, some reporters set out to find the answer and, at least in Beantown, it’s probably not a very good one from the taxpayer’s point of view. As they discovered, some of these accused individuals remain in this administrative no man’s land for months or even years on end, many collecting full benefits and generous salaries the entire time. We begin with the story of former Boston police lieutenant John Earley who, back in 2015, allegedly left a pub one night, jumped in his pickup truck and crashed into a backhoe that was cleaning up snow from the streets. He was then accused of fleeing the scene. The department brought charges against him and placed him on paid administrative leave. Guess what happened next. (CBS Boston, emphasis added)

In June 2016, a Boston judge dismissed the case, ruling prosecutors had not proven Earley was behind the wheel of his vehicle that night. However, BPD’s internal affairs investigation into the veteran cop continued. In July 2017, the department fired Earley.

By that time, he’d collected checks while staying at home for almost 900 days, earning more than $355,000 during his stint on paid administrative leave.

That was the highest amount received by a City of Boston employee over the past three years, according to records the WBZ I-Team obtained.

Earley was far from the only recipient of such taxpayer largess in this report. Two of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh’s top aides were under investigation as part of a federal extortion case and remained on paid leave for two years. They collected $410K during that extended vacation. There are many more examples, but the report found that the average duration of a municipal employee on paid administrative leave was nine months and the average compensation they received during that time was $72K. In just the past three years, Boston taxpayers have shelled out five million dollars for paid administrative leave.

If you don’t happen to have a government job, you’re probably wondering how this happens. In the private sector, if you’re under investigation for something awful and it’s a source of embarrassment to your employer, you will likely be unemployed in short order and hoping you qualify for unemployment. But these city workers have powerful unions with rigid contracts making it almost impossible to fire them or even put them on unpaid leave.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans was asked about the situation and if he thought it should be this way. He claims he doesn’t like it more than anyone else, but what’s a civil servant to do?

Evans also said police officers have due process rights spelled out by collective bargaining agreements and civil service rules. Only when officers are criminally indicted can they be placed on unpaid leave.

“I think we are doing a good job policing our officers and are not afraid to bring them to court,” Evans expressed. “We are not brooming these cases. Do I wish it went quicker? Yeah, I wish there was a better way.”

When asked if the lengthy paid leave stints are just something taxpayers have to accept, Evans responded, “No, I’m not saying accept it because we can always improve and we’ll look to improve.”

He wishes there were a better way. May I humbly offer a suggestion? Get a representative of the taxpayers at the table when the public unions are negotiating these contracts rather than just the politicians who accept huge donations from their unions. You might be shocked at the results.