University bias complaint: Someone said ‘mothers’ instead of ‘lactating individuals’

A bias complaint was filed at the University of Minnesota alleging that a graduate student “used biologically correct language when referring to women, according to a bias report obtained by The College Fix. Among the more than 100 Bias Response and Referral Network reports filed between July 2024 and March 2026, were three that addressed the same controversy.”

In October 2025, a graduate student reported a peer “for complaining about ‘having to change grant proposal language from “mothers” to “lactating individuals.”’”

Another bias complaint was over an incident last August where a student reported a street evangelist for saying “remember, only male and female,” and trying “to convert [the] reporter to Christianity” outside of the university’s Coffman Memorial Union. That was flagged as bias based on gender identity and religion.

The College Fix obtained a spreadsheet of bias reports through a document request submitted under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act

15 percent of the bias complaints involve gender identity or other LGBT identities. “Of the 117 bias reports, roughly 50 percent came from students at either the undergraduate or graduate level, while 29 percent of complaints came from staff, faculty, or professionals at the school. Nearly 20 percent of the bias reports came from sources with an unknown relationship to the school. Additionally, around 25 complaints specifically say the person reporting is ‘anonymous,’ though none of the reports include the names of a specific person complaining. About 1 in 4 complaints involve online communication or graffiti, while 10 percent concern students reporting professors.”

16% of bias complaints alleged bias based on national origin, while 33% alleged racial bias.

The College Fix notes that

At least four of the incidents classified as bias against national origin or race involved a student or university employee reporting an individual who did not have any relationship to the University of Minnesota.

One report was from an anonymous university employee who overheard “biased comments … being made by USPS worker toward a UMN custodial worker.”

One incident involved a student reporting “observing a Panda Express employee mistreating an international student because of limited English proficiency.”

The third incident was an “anonymous report about a dentist mistreating a patient of color,” from April 2025.

The fourth report was an online incident, classified as a bias report regarding race, where a “non-university community member expressed concern about a faculty member’s research.”

These bias reporting systems chill free speech, notes a fellow with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Steve McGuire says bias reporting system can threaten free speech “when what is reported is mere speech and not conduct.”

Many of the cases reported at the University of Minnesota, McGuire notes, “seem to involve reporting people for what would likely be constitutionally protected speech and nothing else.”

“While students must have ways to report harassment and discrimination,” McGuire added, “Several of the reported incidents in the list appear to concern issues about which there is legitimate disagreement, but one side made a bias report instead of engaging in dialogue and debate.”

He said it’s “troubling” that the university does not protect free speech but instead encourages students to rat each other out.

“Allowing bias reporting encourages an illiberal mentality that runs counter to the purpose of a university,” McGuire laments.

He said universities should encourage students to talk to each other instead of reporting each another in hopes of getting a peer punished.

“It is troubling that universities allow anonymous reporting and collect data on reports that cannot be investigated,” McGuire said, noting that nearly a quarter of bias reports are filed by anonymous complainants. “Bureaucrats (and perhaps also activist faculty and students) can use the unverified reports to make claims about the campus community that might not be true.”

“Based on these claims, they can then make demands for policies, offices, programs, etc. that serve their agenda but might not be needed and could have a negative impact on campus life,” McGuire added.