You probably have never taken a hard look at Northwestern’s student handbook. I know it doesn’t sound enjoyable – and really, it isn’t – but its contents say a lot about our community.

Based on those contents, a non-profit organization called FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, gives NU a code red ranking due to about a half-dozen policies that restrict student freedom.

One of the policies pertains to bias incidents, which are similar to hate crimes but more broadly defined. The policy reads:

“Conduct that is classified as a bias incident is defined as an act of conduct, speech, or expression to which a bias motive is evident as a contributing factor.”

The passage is poorly written and tautological. Here’s what it means: Bias incidents are acts that have bias motives. Yet the handbook never defines “bias motives.”

Limiting student freedom is sometimes necessary to promote the best learning environment. Other times, it harms learning but serves administrators’ interests by silencing unpopular or politically incorrect opinions.

And some of NU’s policies, like the one on bias incidents, are so vague and broad that the school can use them to ban almost any behavior it dislikes.

Other rules exhibit similar problems. One is the hazing policy, which absurdly prohibits “wearing apparel that is conspicuous,” “engaging in stunts and buffoonery,” “quests” and “road trips” in student groups.

Laura Beth Nielsen, assistant professor of sociology and director of the Legal Studies program, says NU’s bias incident policy violates the First Amendment. (Disclosure: I am enrolled in a course Nielsen teaches.)

“The rules are there to say we value an inclusive learning community,” she said, but “I highly doubt they would be enforced.”

The reason is that the Supreme Court has found similar policies unconstitutional at other universities, and NU wants to avoid a lawsuit. (It would be a mistake to assume the First Amendment does not apply at private institutions, Nielsen said.)

But even if the Bill of Rights protects us, administrators possess immense power to intimidate by accusing students of violating rules without actually issuing punishments, thus avoiding litigation.

The wackiest part of this issue is that NU’s policies are not unique. Nielsen said colleges nationwide have rules the Supreme Court considers unconstitutional.

Some scholars, she said, believe the rules’ purpose is to show “we’re really committed to diversity and don’t tolerate hatred, even though the administrators may know they can’t possibly enforce it.”

Diversity is crucial to education, and it’s in too short supply here. It’s eerie that schools enact faux rules to show they care. And it’s wrong that, in the name of tolerance, they can use those rules to quell expression they dislike.

Medill senior David Spett can be reached [email protected].