Nevada Joint Union High School District Enacts Snitch Policy

The newly elected NJUHS District Trustees adopted Policy 5145.3 regarding “Nondiscrimination/Harassment” on March 8 of this year. This written policy includes the following on “Microaggressions”:

“Microaggression is a term used for commonplace, daily, verbal, behavioral or environmental slights or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, when those acts communicate hostility, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups. Microaggressions include but are not limited to: inappropriate and derogatory jokes, gestures, and malicious comments, singling out students for embarrassment or significant criticism. Microaggressions can also include setting exams and project due dates on religious holidays and engaging in harmful stereotyping. Allegations of microaggressions shall be reported and reviewed by the same procedures as stated in the Complaint Procedures section.”

When this issue was first addressed at a NJUHS board meeting in 2022, Superintendent Dan Frisella, (then Assistant Superintendent), explained that microaggressions were a “kind of covert, or slight, or indirect dig at a particular student group based off of race, ethnicity, sexual preference or gender.” He then admitted that “the individual making the gesture or remark does not intend it to do harm”, and a microaggression could include something as simple as “forgetting someone’s pronoun.”

But as of March 8 of this year, the new policy urges a student or staff member who unintentionally says anything that another student deems to be hurtful or offensive be reported to his or her school officials as perpetrating harassment or discrimination. To carry this policy to its logical conclusions, here is one example of misuse of this policy – if a female student indicates verbally that she is uncomfortable with a biological male in her locker room, or objects to competing against a biological male on the sports field she could be reported to school officials and face discipline and/or penalties such as suspension.

What would happen to a student who expressed that he or she was uncomfortable in an environment created by instruction in critical race theory in his classroom? Who would be the “injured party” – the teacher providing the instruction or the student who was offended by it?

As alarming as the new policy at the NJUHS District may seem, it is only the tip of the iceberg, and is merely mirroring statewide policies being put into effect. Governor Gavin Newsom has unveiled a new weapon in his arsenal against our citizens’ freedoms: a snitch hotline for Californians to report “hate acts”. If this action brings the novel “Brave New World” to mind, you would not be far wrong. Welcome to the brave new world of thought police, California-style.

The state legislature provided funding to its Civil Rights Department to establish what they are calling “a non-emergency hate incident and hate crime reporting system to support individuals and communities targeted for hate”.

“A hate incident is a hostile expression or action that may be motivated by bias against another person’s actual or perceived identity”, the website states. “Perpetrators may be motivated by different discriminatory biases, including, but not limited to: bias based on race, color, disability, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender, including gender identity.”

Some examples of “hate incidents” described on the website include “derogatory name calling, bullying, hate mail, and refusing service.” This is a dangerously broad definition that can encompass a wide range of non-violent activities, but in the mind of California’s governor no slight or offense is too small to escape scrutiny.

In California, a hate crime is defined by specific criteria which includes willful intent, the use of force, interference with constitutional rights, and a clear motivation based on actual or perceived characteristics. However, the hotline's definition of a hate crime goes far beyond anything dictated by the penal code. It encompasses a wide range of activities that fall far short of meeting the legal threshold, such as name-calling, blurring the line between protected speech and criminal behavior, and effectively criminalizing dissent and fostering an environment of self-censorship, as individuals fear retribution for expressing controversial or unpopular opinions. The fact that many on the far left view any utterance with which they disagree to be “bigoted” or “racist” makes this even more problematic.

Reports made to the hotline "will not be shared with law enforcement," unless the person making the report requests that it be shared. However, the website indicates that the hotline will share information with law enforcement "if needed." Who is the arbiter capable of making that decision?

It will also “identify civil legal options that don’t involve the criminal legal system, both through the Civil Rights Department and other agencies." Offering these connections to civil legal options and non- criminal agencies bypasses the established checks and balances of the justice system, potentially leading to the accused being condemned without due process, facing either legal or social consequences, or both.

This hotline cultivates an environment of fear, pitting neighbors against neighbors and turning words into weapons of accusation. It is a dangerous path to tread, one that leads us away from the ideals of liberty and towards the abyss of authoritarianism.

There is no question that the stakes are high. Bias-incident reports at American universities have prompted concerns about free speech and academic freedom, and the expansion of such protocols at public schools only serves to add to those worries. A bureaucratic apparatus of cultural policing, complete with student informants in public schools could be seen as an instrument of the “immense and tutelary power” as described by Alexis de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America.” De Tocqueville feared that American democracy could degenerate into bureaucratic rule and an “immense and tutelary power” would cover “the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform. . . it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people.”

In the end, Governor Newsom’s hotline and microaggression policies such as the one present in our high school district serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of our freedoms. We must remain vigilant, as justice cannot be achieved through a system that thrives on suspicion, division, and the erosion of civil liberties.