"On Sunday, UW-Madison Dean of Students Lori Berquam produced an awkward, stilted YouTube video advising students 'Don't go'..."

"... to this year's Mifflin Street Block Party. The video went viral and students almost immediately began to heckle Berquam on social media."

"Did UW-Madison's diversity chief incite students?"

Deborah Ziff asks:

Talk show host Bill O'Reilly called him "a loon." The head of a conservative think tank said he fed students propaganda and egged on a student "mob."

The comments were directed at UW-Madison's chief diversity officer, Damon Williams, who has been at the center of an admissions maelstrom ever since the Virginia-based Center for Equal Opportunity alleged in a report this month that the university gives preferential treatment to black and Hispanic students.

Learning a day early that the center planned to release its findings at a Madison news conference, Williams and Dean of Students Lori Berquam convened a meeting of students to discuss "a threat to our diversity efforts." The next day, a group of students disrupted the news conference, forcing the center's president and a former UW-Madison professor to leave the room.

Read the whole thing. Who knows the causal connection between the meeting one day and the disruption the next? My point — and I'm quoted toward the end of this piece — is that the University should not act scared about this. It should not concede that the CEO's activity is a threat. Presumably, the admissions policies are aligned with the case law and within the range permitted under the Equal Protection Clause. Why stir up negative emotion and anxiety?

The appropriate attitude is confidence and pride, demonstrating a belief in the chosen policy. The organization that has attacked us is serious and hardworking. It's not a random swipe at us that deserves no attention. We should respond in a way that suits a public university and have a reasonable, vigorous debate, including a conversation with the people of the state. The people have the power to trump the University's policy choice by legislation, so simple political sense ought to make us want to make a good argument aimed at them. But quite apart from political pragmatism, we should, as a matter of principle, show that we care about the citizens of Wisconsin who were excluded in the admissions process. As a university, we should take advantage of what is an opportunity to teach and to demonstrate a love for debate and weighing diverse viewpoints.

I mean, diversity is supposed to be the central value. And — here's a lesson in what the Supreme Court has said the Equal Protection Clause means — the diversity that justifies the use of racial classification "is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce."

The reason the Court has allowed some flexibility to use race in admissions is that it supposedly connects to the University's educational mission. If that connection is real, it ought to show.

"Two reports released today allege the University of Wisconsin discriminates against whites and Asian applicants and have electrified both UW administration and some student leaders."

This is the diversity emergency discussed in the previous post:

The reports were released at midnight on Tuesday from the Center for Equal Opportunity in conjunction with a press conference CEO President Roger Clegg will hold at the Double Tree Inn at 11 a.m. today. Clegg will also be at a debate on the future of Affirmative Action at the UW Law School at 7 p.m. this evening....

In an interview with The Badger Herald, Clegg said the reports show how a heavy preference is given to blacks and Latinos over whites and Asians in the admissions process for undergraduate programs and in the law school.

[Damon Williams, UW vice provost for diversity and climate,] and Dean of Students Lori Berquam said CEO had filed an open records request on the UW admissions process for both undergraduates and law school applicants and had already set the wheels in motion to orchestrate a “coordinated attack” against the campus....

Williams stressed the need for students to mobilize, and the students present did not seem to need any convincing.

“Don’t wait for us to show the way,” Williams said to students, who were already assembling poster board to make signs against the CEO president’s report and visit.

That was the report in The Badger Herald. Here's the other student newspaper, The Daily Cardinal:

The "aggressive and right wing" organization's plan, according to Berquam, is to effectively eliminate affirmative action at UW-Madison.

"I was so upset that our students are going to have to wake up in the morning and deal with this," said Williams with tears in his eyes.  "That's not what students came here for."...

But Williams told students not to despair, for every student admitted to UW-Madison is and deserves to be a badger.

"I want students to be able to be in power; to say this is who we are, this is what we value," Williams said.

He said students should lead the university's response against CEO....

One of the first responses will occur tomorrow, when students opposing CEO's stance will hold a rally "to express their solidarity and pride in UW and a sense of togetherness," said [Sarah Mathews, vice president of public relation for the Wisconsin Union Directorate].

ADDED: In the next post, I discuss the law and politics.

Does the University live up to its own diversity values?

Adam Schmidt, a UW junior who voted to amend the Wisconsin constitution to ban same-sex marriage, has this op-ed in today's Wisconsin State Journal:

In a statement Wednesday specifically crafted for the student body - on university letterhead - Interim Dean of Students Lori Berquam expressed her "extreme disappointment" in the marriage amendment's passage, characterizing the decision of 1.2 million Wisconsin voters a "strike against equality" and a "shameful aberration."

Further, Dean Berquam's remarks were deliberate to thank those who "fought against" the amendment and gave praise to "young people and students (who) overwhelmingly rejected the amendment," seemingly disapproving my convictions and rejecting my value to the university community...

On a university campus obsessed with equality, diversity and freedom of self-expression, I prayed there would be room for my opinion as well.

Most aggravating, Berquam's remarks come mere months after administrators rolled-out the campus "Think" campaign to encourage respect for everyone's views.

Chancellor Wiley has said, "We want a campus that embraces difference and where respect is rampant."

I've been critical of the "Think. Respect" program for various reasons, but not really on this ground. Schmidt raises the question of whether a University that promotes diversity and respectful communication can also express some specific ideas of its own. I think it can. For example, university officials can -- and should -- express a belief that men and women are equal. But an individual student is free to argue that they are not.

My objection to "Think. Respect" is that it pressures students to be respectful when they interact with each other, but I think they have a right to express ideas with harsh brutality. They are entitled to scoff at and belittle someone who says something they find loathsome. It's preferable to frame articulate arguments based on facts and serious contemplation, but the university cannot require an idealized form of expression.

If the university expressed specific opinions in a disrespectful way, that would be hypocritical, but expressing specific opinions is not inconsistent with supporting diversity. As for the same-sex marriage issue, the university had a strong institutional reason for taking a position: The ban hurts our interest in attracting faculty and staff here. The university was not obliged to keep silent on the issue in order to prove our commitment to fostering open debate.

ADDED: Here's Berquam's letter (PDF). Read the whole thing and try to understand her motivations for writing it as well as Schmidt's reaction to it. Here's the final paragraph:

As we reflect upon the impact of this vote, it is important that we also remember the positives: young people and students overwhelmingly rejected the amendment. A diverse and wonderful coalition of people -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; numerous faith communities; people of all sexual orientations; lawyers, businessmen and women, clergy members, educators, and students; and people of all ages -- came together to fight this amendment. Though it may be but small consolation right now, it is hard to imagine that history will not one day prove this to be a shameful aberration in our otherwise progressive tradition.

The letter, taken as a whole, characterizes the passage of the amendment as a blow against diversity (because of the way it excludes gay persons from the institution of marriage) and makes an effort to soothe the feelings of students who feel disrespected by the vote. Schmidt's point is that he feels disrespected by the letter, because he voted for the amendment and he's getting the message that his university thinks people like him are bad: Why is there no concern about his feelings? Isn't part of caring about diversity making people who believe different things feel welcome in the university environment?

I do think the letter would have been much better if it had shown respect and understanding for the students who supported the amendment and that it is inconsistent with the values of the "Think. Respect" program. If you want students to be able to debate about controversial issues, like this one, you shouldn't foment the idea that those disagree with you are the kind of people you should shun. If you want to equip your students to operate in the real world, you should encourage them to try to understand why their opponents think they way they do and to develop the kinds of arguments that can persuade them.

"Wisconsin’s latest speech code, the 'Think. Respect.' program."

Here's an opinion piece in the Badger Herald by Robert Phansalkar, a UW student (majoring in political science and languages and cultures of Asia):

The [“Think. Respect.”] program calls for university students to search for forms of discrimination and harassment on campus, and when present, to download a “bias incident report form” to be submitted to the Student Advocacy and Judicial Affairs unit of the Dean of Students for a potential investigation. Implicit in this reporting scheme is that students who harass will be punished or reprimanded in some way....

Ironically enough, the university’s protection of students against bias includes political affiliation...

Here's a letter in response to that article by UW polisci prof Donald Downs (who wrote this book about campus speech codes):

It was good to finally see that a student journalist has grasped the fact that the program, as presently conceived, poses a threat to honest discourse and privacy on campus. The program encourages campus citizens to report not only acts of harassment or discrimination that constitute official misconduct, but all forms of “bias,” verbal and non-verbal, without that term being defined in a manner that is consistent with First Amendment principles. In other words, the present policy amounts to a speech code, as it encourages people to file reports on other people’s attitudes and speech that informants deem insufficiently senstive.

Here's the University's announcement of the "Think. Respect." program, explaining the logo, which looks like this:

[IN THE COMMENTS: Pastor Jeff says: "It would look great on an armband. "]

Included in that announcement;

Chancellor John D. Wiley says the campus has seen improvements in climate during the past few years. However, an anti-gay incident in University Housing last spring — one of the driving factors behind the campaign — demonstrated that the campus community still has more work to do.

"We are committed to creating and sustaining a campus community that is open, diverse and inclusive," Wiley says. "We want a campus that embraces difference and where respect is rampant. We will not tolerate bias, racism, disrespect or hate."

To counter racism in any of its forms, Berquam is launching a bias reporting mechanism through the Offices of the Dean of Students Web site.

Here's that website:

A bias incident is a threat or act of bigotry, harassment or intimidation - verbal, written or physical - that is personally directed against or targets a University of Wisconsin-Madison student because of that student's race, age, gender identity or expression, disability, national or ethnic origin, political affiliation, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, veteran status, or other actual or perceived characteristic.

What is a verbal "act of bigotry, harassment or intimidation" aimed at someone's "political affiliation"? What does "other actual or perceived characteristic" refer to? Students who "have witnessed or experienced a bias-related incident" are told to click to this form (PDF) to submit a report. Back to the website:

Students can report anything, from a hate crime to graffiti to verbal harassment. SAJA will attempt to follow up in every instance, contingent on the information provided, to investigate possible misconduct and to provide resources to the victim.

Berquam says that many hate or bias incidents are relayed anecdotally to ODOS staff. The reporting form is one way to quantify how many incidents take place on campus and provide a method for following up.

Students can report anything? And remember Wiley's statement: "We will not tolerate bias, racism, disrespect or hate." We will not tolerate disrespect? You know, I want students to feel good about campus life, but isn't part of campus life having rowdy debates and vigorous arguments? I know from running this blog that there are people who firmly believe that opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. This program should make students worry that anything other than bland pleasantries is going to get them in trouble with the administration. I wonder if you can report feeling threatened if someone made you feel threatened that they were going to report you for making them feel threatened. And what's the good of encouraging students feel entitled to a cushioned speech environment? How does this equip them to live in the real world?

Why doesn't the university have a program that promotes debate about tough issues and teaches students how to express themselves forcefully? No, no, when someone mocks your political ideas, you ought to slink away and go back to your little room and download a report form.

(And, yes, it's incredibly ironic that the university also went to the wall for free speech values when it dealt with Kevin Barrett.)

AND: Don't miss the new post, with the new logo!