OPINION & EDITORIAL
Hate-crime laws promote diversity
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
- Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? (November 15, 2007)
- It's the media, stupid: Political coverage misleads (November 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Shall make no law ... (January 24, 2006)
- Culture of intolerance spawns actions of hate on campus (January 25, 2006)
- Campus newspapers continue to pollute campus with racism (September 6, 2001)
- Take campus safety seriously (October 1, 2003)
- SPEAK UP! is important in the effort to combat harassment (March 8, 2002)
by Bassey Etim
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
In my time at the University of Wisconsin, I've realized it can be hard for a lot of people to adjust to the UW culture shock. So here are a few helpful hints drawn from some observations around campus:
When someone says "hi" to you on campus — around Dayton Street and Bassett Street, for instance — it is inappropriate to stare at his scarf and yell "Fag!" until you get a walk sign. Further, despite what you hear from those liberal media hacks, following a suspected homosexual home and throwing beer cans while expressing your distaste for man-love is not exercising constitutional privilege. It's just being a moron.
As last week's headlines suggested, the incident in Ogg Hall in which an LGBT liaison was threatened and had property vandalized wasn't surprising. Tolerance and empathy for cultural differences seems low in this alleged progressive bastion in the middle of Wisconsin.
Don't worry, I do not intend to waste your time by giving a spirited repudiation of hate speech. After all, if you are the type to be so incensed with the idea of two men kissing in a photograph that destroying things seems the only option, you are probably incapable of understanding the following insult: troglodyte.
Instead, this incident and the pending prosecution should be held up as a sort of validation for the stiffer penalties allowed by hate-crime legislation.
UW's ability to offer students personal growth by exposing them to foreign ideas can only go as far as the student body itself. To be a truly diverse and welcoming school capable of providing students with unique life experiences and exposure to unfamiliar cultures, UW has to be able to retain — or acquire, depending on your outlook — a diverse student body.
How could we possibly offer this experience if LGBT students can't even feel safe within the confines of university housing? Are we to tell a minority population that any bigotry directed at them is merely an exercise of free speech? Or that the incident in question, while obstinate and wrong, is an example of impudent drunkenness and not a serious crime?
So what is the big deal anyways? No one was hurt and police resolved the situation. Why do the young men accused have to face anything more than a disorderly conduct ticket? LGBT students should get some thicker skin and refuse to be intimidated by the late night rantings of a group of imbeciles. The threat of a mandatory felony is just a backdoor for censoring speech.
Those who proliferate this argument are overlooking a crucial point. This student wasn't handing out fliers and he wasn't at a gay rights rally. He was sleeping in his room at 2:30 a.m. He didn't come to UW to make a political power play or advance some left-wing agenda. He came here to go to school.
Threatening violence against an individual is an indignant response to some perceived insolence. Threatening violence against a culture or sexual orientation is a declaration of hate and intent to commit heinous crimes against an entire community. Thus, this brand of fanatic intolerance is more dangerous than your average late night dorm scuffle. It is both a threat to an entire strata of individuals and a black eye for an institution seeking to attract students from all walks of life.
Watching the nationwide debate over gay rights unfold summons parallels to the civil-rights movements of the 1950s and '60s. Gay rights have been cast aside by those born with the societal privilege of being heterosexual with the same disdain and befuddlement of those who saw no redeeming value in integrating schools. Nowadays those who argue against legislation which simply bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, as recently proposed in Washington state, claim it could lead to waves of fraudulent lawsuits against employers who unwittingly fire or turn down gay applicants. The resulting lawsuits could erode the American judicial system and spawn a new culture of litigation in which Americans turn to the courts to resolve their frivolous disputes. And that would be just awful. (Besides, whose constituents want to talk to a gay guy at the water cooler?)
The LGBT community has a reasonable expectation they won't be targets for vandalism and bigotry while on campus. While the free speech of others should be ferociously defended, it is essential for the well-being of this institution that we are able to attract students from every background and display an unflinching desire to provide all students a safe learning environment.
In the effort to forge a society in which minority groups don't fear leaving a familiar neighborhood and LGBT students feel safe and comfortable in their schools, the hate crimes enhancer sends an important message about free speech: don't exercise it through another's property.
Bassey Etim (etim@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism and political science.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 8:23am):
"it is inappropriate to stare at his scarf and yell "Fag!" until you get a walk sign."
It is also inappropriate to yell "Honky!" or "Cracker!" or at a white person, especially when that white person is not even bothering you.
"...following a suspected homosexual home and throwing beer cans while expressing your distaste for man-love is not exercising constitutional privilege. It's just being a moron."
Walking up to a white guy on State Street who's minding his own business, getting right up in his face and calling every anti-white racial slur in the book is equally moronic!
"Tolerance and empathy for cultural differences seems low in this alleged progressive bastion in the middle of Wisconsin."
And minorities are certainly on the cutting edge of that kind of stupidity, in case you haven't noticed.
"if you are the type to be so incensed with the idea of two men kissing in a photograph that destroying things seems the only option, you are probably incapable of understanding the following insult: troglodyte."
Not incensed, my good friend. It's just that I've seen better tongue technique on octogenarians at Baskin-Robbins on Sunday morning.
"...Those born with the societal privilege of being heterosexual"
Sexual orientation is biologically predetermined, not a privilege bestowed upon an elite few. Nice try, pal.
Okay, Bassey, here's my point: Many straight students here do support gay rights, including alot of us straight guys. But hey, we're sick and tired of being categorized as homophobic Neanderthals simply because we're straight. You'd be surprised just how many of have a gay friend or relative whom we care about very much. There is a lot more straight-bashing going on out there, and no one is the slightest bit interested addressing the issue. Probably the incident and all that was said and done is the only way those guys are allowed to express their anger at being exceptions to the rules of conduct here at UW. The fact that the incident occured doesn't surprise me either. And I'm sure there will be more if any of them wind up in jail.
Consider the fact that you as a black person are able to harrass any white male of your choosing without concern for repercussions. Go ahead, try it. You'd be amazed at how they just stand there and take it, mostly because they'd be branded a racist if they dared to defend themselves. Luck you!
I recommend that you organize a round table discussion with white male students only, with no one else attending. That way you can talk with them candidly and get some honest answers. They'll tell you exactly what it's like being white, male and heterosexual. Think we're not discriminated against? Think we aren't victimized too? Most of us didn't come here to UW-Madison looking for trouble wither, but we got it anyway.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 9:12am):
Excellent!!!! Thank you!
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 1:31pm):
Best summed up here:
Hello, Mr. Governor, and thank you for taking the time to hear our presentation on hate-crime laws, entitled, "Hate Crime Laws: A Savage Hypocracy." Yes, over the past few years our great country has been developing new hate crime laws. If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime. But if someone kills somebody of a different color, it's a hate crime. And we think that that is a savage hypocracy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime? If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government? And motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing. Mayor, it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crimes do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos, that we aren't the same. But instead, we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes. For in that way Cartman can be freed from prison, and we will have a chance to win the sledding race on Thursday.
That is our presentation. An idea that we call...
"Hate Crime Laws: A Savage Hypocracy."
Sad when southpark (episode 402) can explain it so well, so easily... yet large parts of society still dont understand it.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 4:47pm):
Ah, I see the Badger Herald doesn't like to hear about straight white men being victimized, something that happens more often around this campus than what happened in Ogg Hall. That explains why my earlier post wasn't printed. Well, so much for supporting gay rights.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 5:00pm):
Apparently, there's no room for dissent here. I agree that disciplinary action should be taken, but four years in prison? Four years?! Forget it! Now I say let 'em go.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 6:40pm):
excellent article, i found it to be smashingly brilliant.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 7:40pm):
Motivation actually has a lot to do with punishment for a crime. If I break into someone's house, that's a crime. If I break into someone's house with the motivation (or intent as it's called in the legal world) to steal something from them, it's worse, whether I succeed or not. If I assault someone, it's a crime. If I assault them with the intent to kill them, it's worse, even if I don't succeed.
In fact, motivation, or mental state, is one of the two things that are required to convict any felon of a crime.
So, in this particular instance, to damage or destroy property is a crime. To damage or destroy property with the intent to intimidate, demean, whatever verb you want to use, a person based on race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc. is worse.
If you're debating the punishment, and think it is incorrect, the right people to go to are your state legislators. Legislators determine the punishment for crimes, as criminal codes are entirely statutory.
And while I love South Park and love their social commentary, Trey and Matt (as brilliant as they are) don't understand the way the law works.
Anonymous (February 3, 2006 @ 11:25am):
A lot of good comments!
To the first commentor, yes, there was bashing going on in this article. A lot of it was very tongue-in-cheek. It was bashing of people who are prejudiced and bigoted, not bashing of all white and or straight people. Why do you assume that it was? If you have minority friends -- gay in this case -- as you claim, then do you assume when they complain of such treatment that they are talking about you? I should hope not. So why do you assume that Bassey is talking about tolerent people? Certainly, the other incidents you discuss are not ok, but why do you act as if he would do these things rather than finding them inappropriate as well? Why is your automatic reaction to bite back and say , "you do it too," if you aren't even the one being accused. I think that your reaction should be, "we need to foster acceptance and making people feel accepted. We need to make sure that no one feels that such behavior directed toward any group is ok." The non-minority specific language of the Wisconsin law seems to take that tack. To anyone else who has the same reaction, if you believe yourself to be a tolerent person, why do you race to lump people together based on race sexuality or creed rather than condemning the actions of a single, misguided individual? Why rush to the defense of those who are supposedly like you if they did something you would never do, simply because you feel they are being attacked by those who are different?
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 3:56pm):
There should be no law considered a hate crime, the idea is utterly rediculous. I wouldn't do somethig bad to someone I liked, only if i hated them. its just another excuse for the minorities and gays to feel that they are included in society without changing themselves, and just making society get accustomed to them. JUST PLAIN STUPID
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 3:59pm):
Who says UW needs to be more diverse, I think its fine the way it is. The only way more diversity is going ot come here is with affirmative action, and having good white students or just good students in gneral from not being accepted here and having their dumb counterparts based on race come here so that they feel welcome. Thats crap. Why should I not have been able to come here for gettin outstanding grades in high school while a minority, who was slacking in high school gets to come here because of his race? And trust me it happens, I know a lot of white friends who didn't get in but some of the dum bminorities got in do to this "diversity" stuff Madison thinks it needs.
