��ݮ��ƵAPP����

We know the term “Orwellian” gets thrown around a lot these days. But if a government entity dedicated to investigating and even reeducating Americans for protected speech doesn’t deserve the label, nothing does.

This step towards the Stasi isn’t hypothetical, either. It’s real. The governing bodies in question are called bias reporting systems, and the odds are they’re already chilling free expression on a campus near you. What’s worse, they aren’t staying there — now municipalities and states are using them, too.

In this explainer, we’ll break down what bias reporting systems are, how they’ve spread beyond campus, and why they’re a threat to free speech.

What are bias reporting systems?

If you’ve been on campus in the last decade, you’ve likely heard of bias reporting systems — or, as they’re sometimes called, bias response teams. Their structure and terminology vary, but ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� defines a campus bias reporting system as any system that provides:

1. a formal or explicit process for or solicitation of
2. reports from students, faculty, staff, or the community
3. concerning offensive conduct or speech that is protected by the First Amendment or principles of expressive or academic freedom.

Bias reporting systems generally solicit reports of bias against identity characteristics widely found in anti-discrimination laws. Western Washington University, for example,  a “bias incident” as “language or an action that demonstrates bias against an individual or group of people based on actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity or expression, disability, sexual orientation, age, or veteran status.” Some systems also invite reports of bias against traits like “intellectual perspective,” “political expression,” and “political belief,” or have a catch-all provision for any other allegedly biased speech.

Many colleges have bias response teams that consist not only of administrators but law enforcement. They often investigate complaints and summon accused students and faculty to meetings.

The ability to speak freely is core to our democracy. Any system or protocol that stifles or inhibits free expression is antithetical to the principles and ideals of our institutions of higher education and our republic. 

You might be wondering, “Don’t civil rights laws already cover this sort of thing?” Well, not quite. Bias reporting systems cover way more expressive ground than civil rights laws do, which puts these systems at odds with First Amendment protections. They generally define “bias” in such broad or vague terms that it could be applied to basically anything the complainant doesn’t like, including protected speech. This is doubly so when a school includes that vague and subjective word “hate” as another form of language or behavior worth reporting.

That’s a problem at public colleges, which are bound by the First Amendment, and also at private colleges that voluntarily adopt First Amendment-like standards. Bias reporting systems completely ignore the fact that “hate speech” has no legal definition, and that unless a given expression clearly falls into one of the clearly-defined categories of unprotected speech, like true threats or incitement to immediate violence, it is almost certainly protected by the First Amendment. This remains so regardless of how anyone might feel about the speech itself.

Bias Response Team Report 2017

Reports

The posture taken by many Bias Response Teams is likely to create profound risks to freedom of expression and academic freedom on campus.

Read More

These initiatives incentivize and in many cases encourage people to report each other for disfavored expression. As you can imagine, these systems often lead to unconstitutional infringements on protected student and faculty speech and chill expression on campus.

For example, after the University of California, San Diego received bias incident reports about a student humor publication that satirized “safe spaces,” administrators asked the university’s lawyer to “think creatively” about how to address the newspaper, which they felt “crosse[d] the ‘free speech’ line.” And at Connecticut College, pro-Palestinian students were reported for flyers mimicking Israeli eviction notices to Palestinians, prompting an investigation by a dean.

These are just a couple of instances where bias reporting systems have crossed the line. Sadly, there are plenty more, spanning FIRE’s research and commentary going back as far as 2016 — and none of them are good news.

Sound Orwellian enough for you yet? Wait until you hear how bias reporting systems work off campus.

Bias reporting systems have graduated from campus into everyday life

Exporting campus bias reporting systems to wider society is a disastrous idea. No state should be employing de facto speech police. But of course, that hasn’t stopped state and city governments from trying.

Bias reporting systems have been popping up in one form or another across more than a dozen state and city municipalities in the last four years, usually consisting of an online portal or telephone number where citizens are encouraged to submit reports.

If you’re thinking this is just like the  that many states have had for years, there is one important difference: namely, the word “crime.” While the new bias reporting systems will similarly accept reports of criminal acts, they also actively solicit reports of speech and behavior that are not only not crimes, but also First Amendment-protected expression.

They know this, too.

, for instance, describes the information it compiles as being on “biased but protected speech.” This raises the obvious question of why the police are concerning themselves with Americans lawfully exercising their fundamental rights, and opens the door to police responses that violate those rights.

Wherever they’ve popped up, these bias reporting systems have been bad news. Washington Free Beacon journalist  has turned up a number of alarming examples. In Oregon, citizens can report “” and “.”

Meanwhile, in Maryland, the attorney general’s office states on  that “people who engage in bias incidents may eventually escalate into criminal behavior,” which is why “Maryland law enforcement agencies are required by law to record and report data on both hate crimes and bias incidents.” But these speculative concerns do not justify the chilling effect bias reporting systems create. Not only do these systems solicit complaints about protected speech, they also cast an alarmingly wide net. It’s hard to believe, for instance, that many “offensive jokes” are reliable signs of future criminal activity.

At this point you’d be forgiven for thinking that “Orwellian” is an understatement.

But that’s not the worst of it. In Philadelphia — home of ��ݮ��ƵAPP����, the Liberty Bell, and the Constitution — authorities fielding “” can now  about the alleged offending party, including their names. According to Sibarium, city officials will in some cases “contact those accused of bias and request that they attend sensitivity training.”

You heard that right. If you’re reported for a “non-criminal bias incident” in the city of Philadelphia, the city may request that you take a course meant to teach you the error of your ways. “If it is not a crime, we sometimes contact the offending party and try to do training so that it doesn’t happen again,” Saterria Kersey, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, told Sibarium.

The training is voluntary, but it reflects an unsettling level of government interference in the thoughts and opinions of the public.

At this point you’d be forgiven for thinking that “Orwellian” is an understatement.

Bias reporting systems are a threat to free speech on and off campus

Thankfully, there has been some considerable pushback on bias reporting systems — though not entirely successful. Washington, for example, introduced  to create a statewide bias reporting system, but it failed to advance out of the Senate Ways and Means committee. However,  passed in March of 2024, and  this year.

The threat remains real, and the consequences of these speech-chilling initiatives are further-reaching than it might seem at first glance.

On campus, the mere existence of bias reporting systems threatens one of the purposes of higher education, if not the purpose: the free exchange of ideas. Some  have  that bias reporting systems may chill protected speech to such a degree that they violate the First Amendment.

Bias reporting systems fundamentally undermine the First Amendment rights of not just students and faculty, but also ordinary citizens.

The state-level reporting systems raise similar First Amendment issues — especially when law enforcement is involved. Like their campus counterparts, the state systems use expansive definitions of “bias” and “hate” that could encompass a vast range of protected expression, including speech on social or political issues.

However, unconstitutionality isn’t the only concern. Even a bias reporting system that stays within constitutional bounds can deter people from freely expressing their thoughts and opinions. If they are afraid that the state will investigate them or place them in a government database just for saying something that offended another person, people will understandably hold their tongues and suppress their own voices. Moreover, the lack of clarity around what some states actually do with the reports they collect is itself chilling.

The ability to speak freely is core to our democracy. Any system or protocol that stifles or inhibits free expression is antithetical to the principles and ideals of our institutions of higher education and our republic. In both word and deed, bias reporting systems fundamentally undermine these principles — and now seriously threaten the First Amendment rights of not just students and faculty, but also ordinary citizens.