What are the potential harms that could come from instantly flagging "unusual or suspicious behavior" that occurs one time (and that a time of high stress in a student's life), rather than acknowleging students as actual humans living actual human lives whose behavior during one short time period cannot be understood outside of that context?

This makes a completely false equivalence between surveiling and assessing.

I genuinely do not understand the connection between policing test-taking behavior and improving learning outcomes. The company specifies that their analytics can help identify students who may need additional support or personalized instruction, but they are not truly assessing exam outcomes - they are watching for plagiarism, students asking other people to take their exams for them, or other behaviors that someone (institutions? instructors?) assumes need to be monitored.

These and other words underscore the alleged neutrality of the algorithms in Proctorio's software, and obscure the fact that people - with all our messy biases - constructed these systems and processes. And if I understand correctly, there are several layers of human intervention in proctoring and checking flagged behavior or results.

I'd like to see more interrogation of these claims to neutrality and acknowledgment on the part of the company that as flaws in the system come to light, it's people who are doing the work of discussing and addressing them.

I thought multiculturalism was the phase higher ed went through in the 1990s before we realized that diversity alone isn't anywhere near good enough.

This language is outdated and honestly a bit offensive without any acknowledgement of systemic inequalities and injustice.