‘Expressions of disrespectful bias, hate, harassment or hostility against an individual, group or their property because of the individual or group’s actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion…can be forms of discrimination. Expressions vary, and can be in the form of language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, fear, or resentment in others…even when presented as a joke.’
Good heavens, exactly what sort of expression wouldn't be considered a "bias incident" under that code? How could you claim to support free speech when you have institutionalized a Stalinist speech code like that? So much for "academic freedom." God forbid anyone tells a joke on that campus.
While I am against speech codes and the like, it is important to realize that traditionally the concept of "academic freedom" was to guarantee that scholars researching what might be controversial or unpopular subjects in their areas of specialty would not be subject to intimidation and/or harassment. It was meant to apply to the areas of specialty of the scholar. Mr. Myers is a biologist, not a theologian. It seems if he appeals to "academic freedom" in defense of his actions, it would be inappropriate and beyond the purview of such a policy.
The Reagents of the University have the authority to enact reasonable policies to safeguard the integrity and good name and reputation of the University. If one of their employees is violating such policies, they have the responsibility to act if their policies are to have any meaning. Myers obviously has violated their stated policy.