> Same way US law does. Absent specific laws, to have a claim you have to demonstrate tangible harm in some way. Burden of proof is on the claimant. And in 95% of the cases HN complains about, its impossible to find harm.

I don't think you have any idea whether any of these students has even tried to find harm; but, even if you do know that, the inability to prove harm is a legal standard, but it's a far different thing from no harm being done.

(I just recently read Rothstein's The color of law, which makes clear, for example, the situation in which people of colour today find themselves, where I think any reasonable person would agree that they have clearly been harmed by long-term racist policy-making in the US, but where there is no one person who meets the legal standard of having done them harm, and so no-one from whom they can seek legal redress.)