OPINION & EDITORIAL
Hate crime debate needed on campus
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mac VerStandig:
- How the Pentagon won the war over Baghdad and the war over public opinion (April 25, 2003)
- Hypocrisy floats riverboats casinos (September 9, 2005)
- Hate crime debate needed on campus (January 20, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Thank you, Dr. Spear (October 26, 2005)
- Culture of intolerance spawns actions of hate on campus (January 25, 2006)
- Bascomgate (September 16, 2005)
- Farrell for provost (March 6, 2006)
- Fear scares crime debate senseless (September 18, 2007)
by Mac VerStandig
Friday, January 20, 2006
Ignore the radical feminist inching her way toward the provost's office and you will discover that until Wednesday, the University of Wisconsin was in the midst of a terribly dry news cycle. Press releases coming out of the school's PR shop hardly cried out for newsrooms to be brought to standstills; of the three issued Tuesday, one focused on adult language classes, while another was simply headlined "Book Smart."
Then again, it is always the slow news days that find some way to end with the biggest headlines. And Wednesday proved no exception.
The story of Benjamin Chamberlain and his three friends being charged with a litany of hate crimes for their alleged vandalism of Ogg Hall and harassment of an LGBT liaison has hit the UW campus amidst what can only be described as the perfect storm.
With little else to focus on in the lead up to Wednesday's courthouse shame, the news media had once again turned its eyes to the UW System trying to create a policy on resident assistants leading Bible studies in dorms. The story has been floating about since late last year but sneaked back into the headlines with a Regent-appointed committee having just turned in a list of recommendations slightly more vague than UW's public posture during the Paul Barrows scandal.
And that is the second critical component of this story's making. After a fall term in which students, Madisonians, the local media and, to a degree, the national press came to expect scandal upon scandal from UW (I'll resist re-hashing the tawdry list), the community is not about to accept an absence of tabloid-worthy news in the spring. And if that means converting a mole hill into a mountain or two, campus leaders — especially students — are perhaps all to eager to step up to the plate.
Finally, the question of hate crimes is one that promises to not divide this campus down Republican versus Democratic lines but, rather, to pit the student left against itself. That is the controversy that has commenced to strike the UW community, and, with this unique blend of circumstances, it promises to mushroom wildly over the coming days, weeks and perhaps even months.
On one side is a minority community — and its advocates — constantly in search of equality through affirmative and unequal methods. This is precisely what hate crime laws are: ways of upping the ante on ordinary offenses when perpetrated against select minorities.
On the other side is a blend of liberals and libertarians who embrace free speech as not just a bedrock of civil society but, indeed, the well-placed first guarantee of the Bill of Rights. To them, a legal assault on the thoughts of a criminal is plainly excessive and wantonly unconstitutional.
To be sure, hate crime laws amount to little more than poorly disguised speech codes of the worst order — those that prosecute rhetoric that may not even be manifest on the surface.
And while it may seem that this case is too flawed with the heavy-handed strokes of heartless bigotry to create a debate of any decent size, it is worth noting that it is always the most disturbing of incidents that ignite the biggest controversies. When the Nazis sought to march in Skokie, few defended the hate group's gut-wrenching speech, but many came prepared to defend the worst of society's rhetors fully aware that lines drawn on the furthest of perimeters may always sufficiently protect the many valuable shades of gray found in-between.
In fact, free speech law is seldom constructed around those with noble messages and almost always built to protect the most offensive. It was another anti-Semitic cause that helped lead to the fall of prior restraint, and it was Larry Flynt, arguably the nation's foremost peddler of smut, who helped protect parody when it came under fire in the early 1980s.
To be sure, Mr. Chamberlain seems unlikely to become a rallying point as grand in scope as Hustler Magazine, a Nazi parade permit or even the shameful mock slave auction held on this campus not too long ago. But the UW community is ready for a solid intellectual fight and the hate crimes that disgracefully sit in Wisconsin's criminal code have finally touched campus.
Mac VerStandig (mac@badgerherald.com) is editor in chief of The Badger Herald and a senior majoring in rhetoric.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 1:49am):
Good article, Mac. Hey if these four weasels are guilty of anything, they're guilty of being stupid. But the rest of the larger straight community is totally innocent of any wrongdoing. I've seen straights attacked because they were perceived to be gay or lesbian, but when it is revealed that the victim is straight the GLBTs back away quietly, saying to themselves "It wasn't one of our own after all, so we won't speak up."
Yeah, a lot GLBTs care about anyone else! So it should no surprise that there is so much apathy amongst straights when a GLBT really is targeted. You don't care about us, we don't care about you. And I honestly don't. Does that make me a hater? Hell no. I simply have better things to do with my time than worry about a bunch of radical kooks who wouldn't lift a finger to ensure MY safety, therefore no reciprocation on my part seems warranted. So don't get all worked up if I just turn the page, change the channel or walk on by. Go to the cop shop if you need a shoulder to cry on. Not me. I'm too busy trying to earn that sheepskin before it gets too expensive!
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 9:24am):
Mac, one pretty blatant factualy error in your analysis is that hate crime enhancers only apply to people who would benefit from affirmative action. In fact, if I beat the tar out of someone for being white or straight, that would qualify as a hate crime. It doesn't just protect minorities, although minorities (sexual, racial, and otherwise) tend to be those on the wrong end of the baseball bat.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 10:50am):
Mac, you're wrong, this will not divide the left. The four students clearly have the right to hate gays, and hate them as much as they want. But that right only goes so far as it doesn't negatively affect others, especially those who they so clearly hate.
I don't think you mean to imply that they shouldn't be charged for killing someone because that person was gay. That would be absurd. And it is very clear in this case that they violated the right of a fellow student, the right to a safe space, simply because of who that person is or what they believe.
The hate-crime laws are not designed to punish perpetrators for having a certain viewpoint, they are designed to punish perps for targeting a victim because of who the victim is and what they believe, and to attempt to deter future behavior.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 11:49am):
What's the difference between saying to your roommate, "I'll kill you if you drink all of my beer again," and saying to a stranger, while waving a gun, "I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet."? The first is hyperbole, the second is a threat. Consequently, one is protected speech and the other is not. Similarly, there's a difference between scrawling "I hate coasties" on the wall of a bathroom stall and yelling, "All f*ggots should die! I hate f*cking f*ggots!" outside of the GLBT coordinator's dorm room. While coasties may feel segregated they, unlike the GLBT community, do not have reason to be afraid for their physical safety. Hate-crimes laws are not perfect, I certainly concede that, but they are the best method we have to cover the gap between ordinary insults or vandalism and actions that are meant to threaten an entire group of people.
Surely we can agree that buring a cross in front of the house of a black family is more dangerous to society and more deserving of punishment than burning a chair in front of another house. Our laws should reflect our values and the reality of our society, and part of protecting speech is recognizing its power.
Michael Malcolm (January 20, 2006 @ 11:57am):
Hate crimes don't punish thought. Among the criteria we use to assess penalties is the impact on the victim(s). This is why, for example, rape carries more severe penalties than simple assault.
In this case, the injury visited on the community is far greater than if exactly the same actions had been perpetrated in the context of a personal vendetta. What these monsters did was *designed* not to harass one person, but to intimidate scores of people. There are lots of victims here, not just one -- and punishment should be proportionally more severe.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 1:42pm):
The manner in which our campus newspapers are actually defending the students involved in threatening a LGBT campus liaison and vandalizing his door is so morally reprehensible that it makes my stomach turn. I am immediately reminded of the Biblical tale in which the crowd is offered a choice between Jesus and the criminal Barabas, and the people's hatred for Jesus is so strong that they side with the murderer Barabas and condemn Jesus.
It is true the constitution protects free press, speech and thought. However, hate is not a thought, it is an emotion, and a vile, destructive one at that. In fact, it is the very absence of thinking that causes people to hold negative stereotypes of minorities in the first place, and it is the same surrender to depraved passions rather than reason that causes those same people to act on their hatred and to threaten, injure or kill LGBT people, people of color, women, members of other religions, and all other victims of hatred.
I have never been more embarrassed to be a student at this school, where intolerance, the very thing that causes unrest and violence in our society, let alone destroys any chance of minorities feeling welcome on this campus, is actually being defended as if it is some sort of "value". It sickens me. Furthermore, this is especially ironic considering that this state is currently on its way to permanently inscribing this type of ignorance and hatred into our state constitution as a ban against gay marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships. If that constitution should pass, perhaps then it will be more accurate to say that our constitution literally protects hate.
In the meantime, these individuals did not give a sermon, write an editorial or create a work of art. They committed a cruel, THOUGHTLESS act of violence and intimidation. It is disheartening and embarrassing, to say the very, very least, that anybody would consider hatred a valid way of "thinking", and that the unending oppression and violence faced by LGBT people and other minorities in this country is trivial compared to the rights of these criminals.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 2:44pm):
"On one side is a minority community -- and its advocates -- constantly in search of equality through affirmative and unequal methods."
Patently offensive.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 2:48pm):
Wow - I figured it would have taken at least a couple of days for the Republicans to start sticking up for each other on this one. Next day service to your brethren - good work!
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 3:40pm):
"The manner in which our campus newspapers are actually defending the students involved in threatening a LGBT campus liaison and vandalizing his door is so morally reprehensible that it makes my stomach turn."
Really? I have yet to see that in either paper, and I doubt I will. As for this article, Mac is arguing for an intellectual debate about hate crimes. Nowhere do I see him "actually defending the students involved."
I would suggest, however, that the 5th and 6th paragraphs of this article, in which Mac suggests that the campus is eager for "tabloid-worthy news" and that this story will "mushroom wildly" appears to be, at best, a justification for stories that have yet to be written but undoubtedly will. And for that we can say shame on the Herald for your self-aggrandizing posturing.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 5:17pm):
These people are not "monsters" as the previous post noted. Should they have vandalized the building, probably not, but it is perfectly fine to not agree with alternative lifestyles like homosexuality or transexuals. Liberals, especially those in Madison, make the mistake of thinking that they are entitled to determine what topics or events are "okay" to protest or disagree with. It is a double standard that is impossible to debate. In general, if a liberal's actions or speech is in some way critisized or impeded, especially if it deals with George Bush or Conservative ideals in general, then it means that their constitutional rights have been violated. However, if a Conservative debates liberal ideas or simply wants to speak at all, then the liberals will say that it is okay to deny them their rights because their words are hate speech and shouldn't be aloud to be spoken. I really don't know if there is a more clear example of double standarded arrogance in this world.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 7:24pm):
"Liberals, especially those in Madison, make the mistake of thinking that they are entitled to determine what topics or events are "okay" to protest or disagree with."
Those with anti-gay belief are free to protest and disagree all they want, as long as they do it in a respectful and peaceful manner. i.e. not writing hateful messages and tearing down signs. If a liberal wrote "die coservatives" and tore down some College Republican signs, it would be equally wrong.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 8:40pm):
"In fact, if I beat the tar out of someone for being white or straight, that would qualify as a hate crime."
Ah, but statistically that hasn't been the case. When straights, males or whites are assaulted, no one reacts. Everyone shrugs. Take the case of a deranged black man in Richmond, VA last year, for example. He shot and killed a white man, a Korean man and an Arab man. The Richmond police chief, who was also black, decided not to charge him with a hate crime. "We all say things in the heat of anger" he was quoted as saying, referring to the racial slurs the black suspect was yelling at his victims as he gunned them down. Now who isn't going to be outraged at the callous insensitivity of minorities when one of their own commits a hate crime? Tell me.
If you want a perfectly logical explanation for the apathy toward hate crimes against minorities nowadays, look no more. It is minorities themselves who are to blame for it. Learn tolerance yourself before you scream about all the hate and prejudice out there.
Anonymous (January 20, 2006 @ 9:59pm):
Don't like the LGBT folks? Fine, that's your right. Want to protest them? Go ahead. Insist on defending their right to say "All f*ggots should die! I hate f*cking f*ggots!"? To the extent that that doesn't constitute a threat to commit mass murder, feel free.
But suppose they didn't say "f*ggots." Suppose they said "All Republicans should die!" Or "All black people should die!" Or "All Jews should die!" Explain to me, please, how that's even remotely defensible. Explain to me what makes it acceptable to call for genocide against one group of people but not another. Explain to me how the "liberals" are displaying arrogance here.
If they had said "All Republicans should die!", I doubt you'd be as respectful in your protest as the "liberals" have been. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you lynched them.
Anonymous (January 21, 2006 @ 11:06am):
"Should they have vandalized the building, probably not." It's probably not ok to vandalize and harrass other students as long as you have a legitimate right to disagree with them? Probably? As a conservative on this campus, I think that's a pretty dangerous proposition for you to make. There are plenty of ways to argue against hate-crime enhancers, but in this case you proved to us that you just don't care what happens to those damned queers.
Anonymous (January 21, 2006 @ 2:58pm):
Suppose they said "All Republicans should die!"
You think they'd be facing years in jail and tens of thousands in fines?
Anonymous (January 21, 2006 @ 4:47pm):
"Explain to me how the "liberals" are displaying arrogance here."
OK, remember the politically-correct 90's? Remember when any minority could get you arrested, evicted, fired or expelled whether you even said or did anything or not? Remember when a woman could get a man tossed in jail just by saying "He tried to rape me" even if the man didn't know she was there? Remember when blacks could scream their heads off at you and accuse you of being a racist just because you wouldn't give them any spare change?
By God, alot of people who were here back in the 90's sure as hell remember it! Minorities did a lot of hating back in the day and had a blast doing it. Don't be surprised if non-minorities decide to indulge a little themselves. Madison and the UW community suffered through a lot of oppression from you morons, AND WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THAT EVER AGAIN!!!
Anonymous (January 21, 2006 @ 6:30pm):
Ah you gotta loving being a republican. Not only to you get to rich off of the backs of the poor and hold all of the power in our country, you get to complain about discrimination the whole way to the bank.
Anonymous (January 21, 2006 @ 10:01pm):
"Ah you gotta loving being a republican...you get to complain about discrimination the whole way to the bank."
We're not all Republicans, moron. Many of us are disenfranchised liberals who got fed up with the extremist mentalities among the radical left, you included.
Anonymous (January 22, 2006 @ 12:23am):
Here's an opinion about the anti-war protest held on campus last November 2nd, obviously posted by a liberal:
"Second, so the heck what if an object was thrown against a building? If you are soldiers bullets and missiles get thrown against your BODY! No one got hurt... it is NOT A BIG DAMN DEAL!
People are such wussies here."
Now suppose this attitude were taken toward the alleged hate crime in question. I'm sure there would be a storm of rage among liberals here. Am I right?
Anonymous (January 22, 2006 @ 4:42pm):
This may be off the topic, but has anyone sat down and critically looked at what actually happened. A picture or a few pictures that were stapled to a bulliten board were taken down and a dry erase board was wrote on. Staple up some new pictures and erase the damn board and it's all over. This is all blown out of proportion and we can thank liberal Madison for that. Let's keep in mind that this so-called "victim" is an LGBT rep. and his job is to promote gay awareness. Of coarse he's going to try and blow this up, it's in his job discription. I think we all need to calm down and realize that there was no physical contact or permanant damage done. These kids are going to walk away from this with some community service and maybe some fines. No need to scrutinize them any more. They were drunk and tore some stuff down, name a UW student who hasn't. Just messed with the wrong guy on the wrong night.
Anonymous (January 22, 2006 @ 6:25pm):
Of course this is a big deal. The reason it's not as noteworthy if someone wrote "Die Republicans" is because there is a long history of homosexual people being killed or otherwise injured simply because of their beliefs. When was the last time you saw a rag tag team of liberals beating up a Young Republican?
