The Huffington Post reports that sexual assault and feminist “activists” at the University of Chicago have published, via flyers and the Internet, the names of male students who have, allegedly, shown “troubling behavior towards romantic or sexual partners.” The accused are given either a “Code Red” or “Code Orange” designation to indicate the alleged severity of their alleged past indiscretions. In an online note accompanying the “Hyde Park List,” the “activists” wrote:
The individuals on the list are individuals we would warn our friends about, because of their troubling behavior towards romantic or sexual partners. Usually, this means either a pattern of negative/troubling behavior, or a very significant negative act. Sexual assault can be one of them, but we are not claiming that all the individuals on the list have committed sexual assault.
Come again? A “pattern of negative behavior…or a significant negative act”? The ridiculous, ambiguous, and arbitrary nature of such standards is so obvious that an analysis of their merits and legitimacy is unnecessary. The publication of the male students’ names and brief descriptions was a malicious act, wildly inappropriate, and unbecoming.
The accused male students should sue for libel and harassment, and then pursue a restraining order. Tumblr, the website that the “activists” used to publish the male students’ names, removed the page because of concerns over harassment and to avoid liability, so there is an apparent concern regarding the legality of the publications.
More important than potential law suits, however, is the non-response from the University of Chicago. Declining to comment on the drama surrounding the published names, the officials there offered only platitudes about the importance of creating a safe environment and addressing sexual assault issues. Instead, they should have publicly rebuked the calumnious and immature actions of the “activists,” demanded an investigation, and considered imposing suspensions.