The worst part is these tolerance policies are written in such a way that it does not actually require anyone to complain, only that there exists a situation in

The worst part is these tolerance policies are written in such a way that it does not actually require anyone to complain, only that there exists a situation in which a hypothetical minority might complain. Which is to say, the purpose of the rules is not to protect the people who represent minority cultures, it is to protect the university (or employer, or government) from a lawsuit. Earlier today HN had an article accusing the Chinese government of enacting "precrime" in the form of a terror threat analysis system. But all around me in the United States I see forms of before-the-fact suspicion being used to punish people. This is one of them: no one of Latino heritage felt harmed by the party, but someone might have and thus the students are being punished. A man with a felony conviction on his record didn't do anything threatening, but he was told he couldn't attend a parent-child activity at school. You can buy alcohol if you're over 21-years old and show valid ID... unless a 19-year old friend is with you in the checkout line because you might give the beer to an underage person. All situations where people are being accused of committing a crime before it happens. The government may not be literally throwing you in prison without a trial, but they passively-aggressively encourage it by passing laws that mandate zero-tolerance policies. And appointing judges who authorize civil suits that punish people who don't perform this kind of criminal profiling, such as a supermarket being liable for selling beer that is later served to a teenager.