Here are the “Principles of Community” that will be enforced by the “SafeWatch” program in Virginia Tech (see previous post, “The Thought Police Have Arrived):
- We affirm the inherent dignity and value of every person and strive to maintain a climate for work and learning based on mutual respect and understanding.
- We affirm the right of each person to express thoughts and opinions freely. We encourage open expression within a climate of civility, sensitivity and mutual respect.
- We affirm the value of human diversity because it enriches our lives and the university. We acknowledge and respect our differences while affirming our common humanity.
- We reject all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including those based on age, color, disability, gender, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veteran status. We take individual and collective responsibility for helping to eliminate bias and discrimination and to increase our own understanding of these issues through education, training and interaction with others.
- We pledge our collective commitment to these principles in the spirit of the Virginia Tech motto of Ut Prosim (That I May Serve).
Most Virginians would share most of these sentiments. The problem isn’t the principles themselves, but how they are enforced, and who enforces them. A couple of red flags:
First: Everyone has the right to express themselves freely, but only “within a climate of civility, sensitivity and mutual respect.” Who defines what behavior falls within the acceptable parameters of “civility” and “sensitivity”? Who has the burden of proof when someone is offended by something someone else says — the person who took offense? Or the person who made the remark?
Second: “We take individual and collective responsibility for helping to eliminate bias and discrimination and to increase our own understanding of these issues through education, training and interaction with others.” Who’s in charge of the educating and training here? What form does that “education and training” take? And how much “diversity” of points of view is permitted?
Nervous yet? Now check the online “Incident Report Form.” If the political/philosophical orientation of this initiative doesn’t smack you over the head, here is all you need to know: People are asked to fill out “general information” about themselves. Under the “gender” category, there four (count ’em four!) choices: male, female, transgender, and questioning. Why not “neuter,” while we’re at it? We wouldn’t want to discriminate against castrati, would we?
Hmmm. I’m wondering… Could that last remark be construed as “insensitive”? Could I already be a candidate for “re-education”?
