果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

FIREResponse to Michael Gilbert, Vice President for Student Life, University of Delaware

FIRE is shocked and disappointed that the University of Delaware has chosen to defend its invasive and unconstitutional residence life education program. Rather than immediately renounce and dismantle what the university itself calls a 鈥渢reatment鈥 program for students living in its residence halls, the school has chosen instead to obfuscate, deny, and distort the program鈥檚 intention, its operation, and its effect.

Vice President for Student Life Michael Gilbert raises several erroneous and misleading points in to 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 October 29 letter that demand an immediate answer. Below is a list of assertions from Gilbert鈥檚 letter, followed by 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 rebuttal of each claim.

1) 鈥淵our letter asserts a number of conclusions that can be supported by a selective citation of documents, but are not actualized.鈥

FIRE鈥檚 Response: FIREunequivocally stands by its description of the University of Delaware鈥檚 鈥渃urriculum鈥 for student housing residents. We invite the public to view the full curriculum of the residence life program鈥available in PDF format on our website鈥攊n its entirety, and to judge for themselves whether we have misrepresented any aspect of the nature of that program through selective quotation. In fact, as readers will see upon examination, the concerns that we have raised pervade every one of the hundreds of pages that constitute the University of Delaware鈥檚 residence life curriculum.

2) 鈥淔IREare not required to participate in any residential activity, educational program, or to maintain the University provided nametag on their door.鈥

FIRE鈥檚 Response: This assertion is directly contradicted by direct quotations from the university鈥檚 own materials. As we have demonstrated, public and internal documents alike stress time and again that 鈥渆very student鈥 must be reached. As an RA wrote to students about one-on-one sessions, 鈥淣ot to scare anyone or anything, but these are MANDATORY!!鈥 Moreover, the philosophy of the program is defined explicitly as being distinct from that of the 鈥渧oluntary鈥 program model. Additionally, the entire residence hall environment is manipulated so that students cannot avoid persistent exposure to the university鈥檚 approved messages.

Additional examples abound. All quotes are from the 2007-2008 curricula for the individual residence complexes. At the Dickinson complex:

路 鈥淎ll students are expected to be at community meetings. As this is the primary educational delivery strategy, follow up will be expected by the RA/HD for those residents who do not attend a community meeting.鈥
路 鈥淓ach room door in the complex will have a door decoration that has a representation of the interlocking circles of the triple bottom line.鈥

At the Christiana Towers complex:

路 鈥淎s a means to take action, students will become engaged in the Adopt-a-Rainforest project.鈥

At the Russell complex:

路 鈥淚n late October, students will take action by advocating for a social group that is oppressed鈥his sequence is capped with the second one on one between the RA and the student in which the student will recognize his/her negative stereotypes and learn how to challenge them.鈥

路 鈥淚n the second floor meeting in late March, students will take action by advocating for a sustainable world.鈥

3) 鈥淭he program is designed to encourage students to think about and to consider a number of issues, but all make their own decisions about the outcome of this reflection.鈥

FIRE鈥檚 Response: This is a brazen misrepresentation of Delaware鈥檚 program. The university鈥檚 use of the word 鈥渆ncourage鈥 is highly misleading given the lengths鈥攆ar beyond 鈥渆ncouragement鈥濃攖o which the university goes to ensure that all students in its residence halls participate in the educational program. For example, after an investigation revealed that鈥攊n the university鈥檚 own words鈥攎ales demonstrated 鈥渁 higher degree of resistance to educational efforts,鈥 the Rodney complex chose to hire 鈥渟trong male RAs.鈥 Each such RA 鈥combats male residents鈥 concepts of traditional male identity,鈥 in order to 鈥ensure the delivery of the curriculum at the same level as in the female floors.鈥 (Emphases added.) Does that sound like mere 鈥渆ncouragement鈥?

Moreover, Gilbert鈥檚 assertion is belied by the philosophy underlying the residence life education program. On the Office of Residence Life鈥檚 website, for example, there is a devoted to distinguishing the university鈥檚 chosen educational model鈥攖he 鈥渃urricular approach鈥濃攆rom the more traditional 鈥減rogramming model.鈥 One of the most striking differences is that only the programming model 鈥渞elies on voluntary attendance.鈥 The university鈥檚 chosen 鈥渃urricular approach鈥 is also 鈥渙utcome based,鈥 undermining the university鈥檚 claim that the program merely encourages students to reflect without pressing for a specific outcome.

Thus, the university measures the success of the program in part by the degree to which students have changed their attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors in response to the 鈥渢reatment.鈥 For example, in the Russell complex, the 鈥渂aseline assessment鈥 measured:

the level Russell freshm[e]n are at in terms of openness to different social identities, their acceptance of people with other social identities and their understanding of their role as responsible citizens. The baseline assessment was conducted as a 鈥減re-test鈥 that will 1) help guide this year[鈥橾s curriculum efforts as well as the further improvement and development of the curriculum, and 2) it will serve as [a] starting point before students receive a 鈥渢reatment鈥, LEAD curriculum, that results from the end of the year will be compared to.

Additionally, if Delaware students truly are merely encouraged to make their own decisions, then why are so many of the 鈥渃ompetencies鈥 framed in terms of the specific ideological viewpoints that students 鈥渨ill鈥 have after completing the program? For example: 鈥淔IREwill recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,鈥 鈥淔IREwill recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,鈥 and 鈥淔IREwill be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.鈥 Like myriad others, these examples鈥攄rawn entirely from the university鈥檚 own materials鈥攃an leave no doubt that University of Delaware students have been and continue to be pressured to adopt approved ideological stances by resident assistants in accordance with the curriculum鈥檚 demands. As Adam Kissel, Director of 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 Individual Rights Defense Program, explains at length, student participation in the university鈥檚 curriculum was mandatory. Indeed, as the university鈥檚 materials make clear, the explicit aim of the curriculum is to 鈥渓eave a mental footprint on [students鈥橾 consciousness.鈥

4) 鈥淭he information about 鈥榖est and worst鈥 RA/resident one-on-ones are certainly of concern, but taken out of context. This terminology has only been used by supervisors to ask Resident Assistants to reflect on their facilitation skills and never to describe students or the outcome of a conversation.

FIRE鈥檚 Response: This is a stunning misrepresentation of the actual practice of the project, as indicated by University of Delaware鈥檚 own documents. One RA reported, 鈥淭his one-on-one was so bad that I had to write [an] IR鈥濃攁n 鈥渋ncident report.鈥 Surely this RA鈥檚 incident report was not about his or her own ability to facilitate the meeting.

Moreover, the RA reports indicate that students were explicitly evaluated on their viewpoints. As we stated in our letter to President Harker, one 鈥渨orst鈥 student was reported having said that she was tired of having 鈥渄iversity shoved down her throat,鈥 and she responded to the question 鈥淲hen did you discover your sexual identity?鈥 by stating, 鈥淭hat is none of your damn business.鈥 Another student identified as having an RA鈥檚 鈥渨orst鈥 one-on-one stated that she did not understand why the university 鈥渇orce[s] all this diversity stuff鈥 on its students. By contrast, in one 鈥渂est鈥 account, 鈥淲e spoke at length about his religion and about how he was raised to 鈥榓ccept everyone.鈥 We also spoke at length about his views of sexual identity 鈥 he has been very impacted by how close[d]-minded his views were. He said, while he may never totally 鈥榞et it,鈥 he at least can respect 鈥榓lternative lifestyles.鈥欌

5) 鈥淢y main point of contention out of the multiple assertions is that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education seems to presume that our students are so empty-headed and ignorant that they would be 鈥榠ndoctrinated鈥 with ease. I believe you have underestimated the quality and caliber of our students.鈥

FIRE鈥檚 Response: Quite the opposite. In fact, FIREis well aware that some students are successfully resisting indoctrination by the sheer number of them who have come forward to tell FIREhow invasive, offensive, and infantilizing they find the residence life education program. Our contention is that a public university has no right to attempt to indoctrinate its students, regardless of whether that indoctrination is ultimately successful. In facilitating such an egregiously unconstitutional program, the school is showing its utter contempt for its students. To argue otherwise is a dereliction of the University of Delaware鈥檚 moral and legal obligations as a public institution of higher learning.

Moreover, it is the height of irony that the university should accuse FIREof envisioning its students as 鈥渆mpty-headed and ignorant,鈥 since that is precisely the starting point presumed in the curricular materials of the residence life education program. The numerous students who have contacted FIREhave complained not only of the program鈥檚 coercion, but also of its infantilizing and condescending nature.

One student who contacted FIREto express his dissatisfaction with the program spoke of the 鈥渕ultiple childish activities鈥 in which he had to participate as a freshman in the residence life education program. Another student wrote of the program: 鈥淲hy it was presumed that 18 and 19 year-old legal adults and college students needed guidance on acceptance and equality of their peers was beyond me鈥 My main opposition to the program is that it assumes that college-age students cannot decide for themselves what is just and right about how treat other college-age students. It has as its fundamental implications that we already espouse certain prejudices of which we need to be cleansed and that we need to go through this process in order to become better functioning members of society.鈥 Yet another student wrote: 鈥淚 know that many people (including myself) would much rather be doing work for classes at night than playing confusing games and learning facts that we all went over in elementary school.鈥 (Emphases added).

The documents and the student accounts tell the true story of the residence life education program. Again, we invite everyone to view the full documentation of the program鈥攊ncluding the detailed curriculum for each of the university鈥檚 eight residential complexes, complete with the philosophy, activities, and assessment of the curricula鈥攁nd judge for themselves the true nature and purposes of that program. The program is an unlawful and immoral intrusion into students鈥 right of private conscience, and FIREwill continue to use all of its resources to ensure that the University of Delaware ends this egregious violation of its students鈥 rights.

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share