A Big, Ugly Can of Worms
Before I begin this post, I’m going to say up front that it discusses race relations. (Hence the title.) This is by nature a difficult discussion that can make a person a lot of enemies very quickly, so I will lay all my cards on the table: I am a Caucasian. The racial incidents occurring at my college have been perpetrated by Caucasians against African-Americans. I find these incidents abhorrent and despicable in the extreme. However, I feel that the University’s reaction to these events must be open to discussion. Righteous anger has caused many people to do wholly unrighteous things, and I do not want to see the University step down that path.
At my school, the University of Dayton, we’ve been having a decent-sized flap over race relations. The key incident that sparked the current conflagration was the circulation of racist flyers through Marycrest residence halls in October. Although that incident itself hasn’t been that heavily covered, a lot of general discussion about the issue has been going on in the campus. (Diversity Group Ups Awareness, Intolerance Editorial, Racial Intolerance Concerns Community)
The latest item in the fight against racism is the new website that has been launched at the University of Dayton to let students report incidents of racism or intolerance. However, I fear that this website marks the beginning of the pendulum reversing its swing: The University may be crossing the line to stop any appearance of racism. What really worries me is this quote on the “Definitions” page of the “Stop Hate” website:
Hate Crime
A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender’s bias against an individual’s or a group’s race, religion, ethnic/national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. (International Association of Chiefs of Police)
The page then goes on to separate hate crimes from “bias-related conduct” or “Hate Incidents,” which differ from hate crimes because “they are not illegal.” The only problem with this definition of a “hate crime” is that the University of Dayton is located in Ohio, and that the Ohio Revised Code does not, anywhere, define a hate crime. In short, the term “hate crime” has no meaning in the criminal justice system in Ohio. It is important to note that Ohio does have a related law. This is the prohibition against “Ethnic intimidation,” which is defined in ORC § 2927.12:
(A) No person shall violate section 2903.21, 2903.22, 2909.06, or 2909.07, or division (A)(3), (4), or (5) of section 2917.21 of the Revised Code by reason of the race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or group of persons.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of ethnic intimidation. Ethnic intimidation is an offense of the next higher degree than the offense the commission of which is a necessary element of ethnic intimidation.
For reference, ORC § 2903.21 defines aggravated menacing, ORC § 2903.22 defines menacing, ORC § 2909.06 defines criminal damaging or endangering, ORC § 2909.07 defines criminal mischief, and ORC § 2917.21, divisions (A)(3), (4), and (5) covers threatening telephone calls. In other words, the ethnic intimidation law does not cover crimes against “society,” it does not cover a great number of crimes against persons or property, and it does not cover any crimes based on “gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation.”
There are also several sections of federal law that deal with hate crimes. The most notable for our purposes is Section 280003 of the mammoth Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This section defines a hate crime as follows:
(a) DEFINITION- In this section, “hate crime” means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.
This is certainly closer to the UD statement - but again, there’s no mention of age, or of crimes against “society.” This definition is also a bit tighter. While the UD definition requires that the offense be motivated “in whole or in part” by bias, this definition requires that a victim be “intentionally select[ed]” based on bias, limiting the crimes it applies to somewhat more. Furthermore, this is a federal definition, and unless a defendant is prosecuted in a federal court, I do not believe that it applies. (I am not entirely certain on this point, however. If you can confirm or deny, leave a comment.)
Now, before my inbox turns into a river of flame, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I do not support any of the activities which the “Stop Hate” webpage is condemning. However, when officials with control of coercive force (such as the UD police department) stop looking at “what the law really says” and start reading “what I would like the law to say,” I start getting worried. Perhaps the definitions page is simply a bit muddled — after all, the “Hate Crimes” definition refers to acts that are illegal in and of themselves, beyond their possible motivations. However, from where I sit, it sure looks like UD has decided to “simplify” the law —- and, in the process, accidentally distort its meaning.
Now, this is all well and good. But here’s the real question: How does one best approach the UD administration to inform them of this problem in the midst of a campus-wide crusade against racism? If you have a good idea, leave it in the comments or e-mail me — I’m looking for suggestions.
Update
I erred in my previous iteration of this post, and failed to cite the federal hate crimes statute. The appropriate references and commentary have been added inline to this post. (And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why a man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client. The law is complex — which is why I worry when it is simplified.)
The UD website also links to the University of Miami’s “No Hate” website, which lays out a refreshingly complete definition of a hate crime. It’s this sort of precise definition that I would like to see on UD’s “Stop Hate” page. Incidentally, their version is close in a hybrid in wording between UD’s definition and the definition in the United States Code. However, I’ve quoted entirely enough law in this post - you can read it yourself if you’re interested.
Another update: Just to make my position perfectly clear on this subject, I have added the disclaimer at the beginning of this post.
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because it is an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him. — John Selden