Stephen Haber, who has won multiple teaching awards, said the fundamental problem is that it “erodes trust” when “universities function on the basis of trust.” Faculty and students must be free to experiment with new ideas, he explained, but the rational response to a system such as the PIH is to avoid saying anything that someone might report. In private communications, several Stanford faculty members expressed concerns about the impact of the PIH on teaching and learning at the university. Maybe the alleged offender is merely pressured into “a path to resolution,” which can include, among other options, “mediated conversation,” “indigenous circle practices,” or an “outdoor/nature based healing experience.” A complaint could also lead to an investigation, since “a matter involving conduct that rises to the level of a hate crime or unlawful discrimination or harassment may be referred to law enforcement or another appropriate process on campus.” It is difficult to believe that any student (or faculty member) notified of a complaint through this system would not feel that he or she is being investigated.
Stanford claims that the PIH is “not a judicial or investigative process,” but don’t count on it. The website says the process exists to address “situations involving real or perceived incidents” and even encourages students to report incidents that “may involve constitutionally protected speech.”
actual or perceived characteristics,” including “race,” “sex,” “disability,” “gender identity or expression,” and other categories. It allows anyone to report anonymously any incident that “adversely and unfairly targets an individual or group on the basis of one or more. At a recent faculty senate meeting, Juan Santiago drew attention to another bureaucratic invention at Stanford, the Protected Identity Harm (PIH) Reporting system. The EHLI already included a plan to provide “financial rewards for finding/reporting” the use of such language. It is time to ask just how close elite American universities will come to the tactics of, say, the People’s Republic of China. But they are doing something even more sinister: using software to track the behavior of campus community members and encourage them to report one another for alleged bias incidents. Stanford University’s Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) debacle showed that Stanford bureaucrats, like their Orwellian prototypes, are eager to make a Newspeak dictionary with ever-fewer approved words.
0 kommentar(er)
