George Washington University President Steven Knapp last night sent an urgent message to all students and faculty and employees regarding the disturbing discovery of swastikas at the International House, which houses 176 Greek students. The first appearance of swastikas appeared a few weeks ago and then again yesterday on the bulletin board of Zeta Beta Tau fraternity. It is clearly a hateful demonstration and the university has worked with the campus Rabbi to counsel students who might have been traumatized by the postings. However, the letter below indicates that the University is treating the posting as a possible hate crime and seeking assistance from the police. A colleague wrote me last night after receiving the email to ask if the posting of such an image is really a hate crime now. It is a good question, though one that some faculty or students might not feel comfortable in raising in fear of being viewed as insensitive.
Federal law defines hate crimes as involving “bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.”
The D.C. Code also ties hate crimes to specific offenses:
§ 22–3701. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the term:
(1) “Bias-related crime” means a designated act that demonstrates an accused’s prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibility, homelessness, physical disability, matriculation, or political affiliation of a victim of the subject designated act.
(2) “Designated act” means a criminal act, including arson, assault, burglary, injury to property, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, rape, robbery, theft, or unlawful entry, and attempting, aiding, abetting, advising, inciting, conniving, or conspiring to commit arson, assault, burglary, injury to property, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, rape, robbery, theft, or unlawful entry.
The only possible crimes that would seem a possible basis for the charge would be unlawful entry or property damage, though posting on a public board would not seem to fit either crime as a facial matter.
As previously discussed (and here), the concern with hate crimes has always been that the expanding definitions can sweep into areas of free speech or viewpoint discrimination. The rollback on free speech in the West has included the use of such laws to target unpopular or offensive speakers.
The University is to be commended for its quick and determined response to these postings. However, the immediate treatment of the posting of such an incident as a hate crime leads to the question over what now constitutes a hate crime. There is also the question of what happens to students who have images that are deemed offensive in their dorm rooms on as part of public statements. If a student includes a swastika or KKK image as part of an exercise of free speech, would they be expelled? There are a host of images that are viewed as offensive by students for cultural or religious or racial reasons. It is not clear what images would be deemed as hateful and grounds for discipline. For example, would students be allowed to create their own racist or intolerant club if it did not receive university funding or take any actions (beyond speech) directed toward other students? The question is where this line is drawn and explained for students and employees. The lack of clarity itself can have a chilling effect for students, though some may welcome such a chilling for this type of speech. Yet, when such images can be treated as potential criminal matters for referral to police, there should be clarity in where that line is drawn.
What do you think?
Here is the letter from President Knapp:
All of us were shocked several weeks ago by the discovery of swastikas in International House. With the help of GW Hillel’s executive director, Rabbi Yoni Kaiser-Blueth, and leaders of Jewish student organizations, the university has offered support and reassurance to students affected by this abhorrent act. Meanwhile, officers who have received anti-bias training have worked with our Office of Diversity and Inclusion in investigating the incident.
In light of that event, we were dismayed to discover this morning a new posting of a swastika, once again in International House, on the bulletin board of the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity. When the university learned this morning about the swastika’s presence, officers of the University Police Department responded immediately, both removing the swastika and launching a new investigation, which now includes the Metropolitan Police Department.
A member of Zeta Beta Tau has now admitted posting the swastika, which he says he acquired while traveling in India over Spring Break. While the student claims his act was not an expression of hatred, the university is referring the matter to the MPD for review by its Hate Crimes Unit. At the same time, information we have developed through our investigation of the swastikas discovered several weeks ago has led us to conclude that that incident should also be referred to the Hate Crimes Unit.
Since its adoption nearly a century ago as the symbol of the Nazi Party, the swastika has acquired an intrinsically anti-Semitic meaning, and therefore the act of posting it in a university residence hall is utterly unacceptable. Our entire community should be aware of the swastika’s association with genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people and should be concerned about the extremely harmful effects that displaying this symbol has on individuals and on the climate of our entire university community. The university will embark on a program of education to ensure that all members of our community understand the damage that symbols of hatred do to us all.
The George Washington University has a deep commitment to principles of inclusion, consistent with our namesake’s affirmation of religious freedom when he wrote in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island that the government of the United States “gives to bigotry no sanction.” We must work together to guarantee that all our students are safe from expressions of bigotry and hatred.
send ‘em to a cotton farm devoid of technology on a hot summer week and have them relive a little history
Mespo. You need to watch this. Hilarious. And very relevant
Link is blocked (I hope) from automatic play because the language is NSFW
—-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90XLNQXN_74—-
Agree with Mike and others. The more mature and “educational” response on the part of the College would be to hold some classes or seminars to
1. Distinguish between a Nazi Swastika and the historical, religious uses of the symbol world wide. This would be educational and probably interesting.
2. Educate those who went to US public school and therefore learned nothing about history just WHY this symbol, if used as a Nazi representation, is offensive to Jewish students. What does it mean to those who may be offended historically and emotionally.
3. Discuss what the First Amendment means in the United States, how other countries don’t have this protection of free speech and why we should honor it by not abusing it.
4. Educate on why it is inadvisable, and possibly dangerous, to purposely poke a stick at a coiled rattlesnake. Their parents should have taught them basic manners and respect for others already.
OK. maybe not that last one…..on the other hand. Yes. This. Actions have consequences and those may not always be legal consequences. Hsssssss…….strike!
Groty:
Me personally? I send ’em to a cotton farm devoid of technology on a hot summer week and have them relive a little history. Education corrects stupid, not punishment– unless you keep doing it.
I like the Malta version with its strangely 60s psychedelic feel although the Humpty Dumpty Celt has some appeal, too.
Symbols won’t hurt you. It’s the guy wielding the symbol to worry about.
About five years ago two ROTC students at the Univ. of Missouri had some alcoholic drinks and then engaged in some “mischief”, for lack of a better word. I’ll make a general statement first about what they did NOT do before describing the acts: they did not engage in vandalism or property damage whatsoever, nor did they harm or threaten to harm anybody. So, what did they do? Three things. First, they climbed a statue of person on campus and tied a bandana over his eyes, giving the appearance the statue was blindfolded. Second, they hoisted what we often call a pirate flag – skull and crossbones – up the flagpole in front of the main ROTC building. Third, they dropped a few cottonballs typically used for cosmetic or hygienic purposes on the lawn of the Black Cultural Center.
Needless to say, cottonballs on the grass caused a collective neurotic meltdown among nearly all of the students, faculty, and university administration. Of course, the university president being highly considerate of the sensitive feelings of the special snowflakes urged anybody traumatized by cottonballs to seek psychological counseling. Speeches were made by grandstanding black students. Letters were written by white students. The editorial boards of the major newspapers in Kansas City, St. Louis and Columbia (where the main campus is located) all had something important to say.
The pranksters were quickly apprehended, and the public pressure was so great the prosecutor said he was considering FELONY hate crime charges. After a couple of days of studying the elements of the hate crime statute and researching the law, he announced he could not make the felony hate crime charge stick. The mob was going to have to settle for the boys being charged with misdemeanor littering. And the university suspended the boys from school. Again, the boys did not damage or vandalize property. They committed no acts of violence. Nobody was threatened. Nobody’s liberty was harmed in any way. What it boils down to is that cottonballs caused the entire university population to feel bad. Cottonballs made them think uncomfortable thoughts that they’d prefer not to think. So the boys were nearly prosecuted for a felony because cottonballs on the lawn of the Black Cultural Center conjured uncomfortable thoughts.
“Immature racist nonsense” is as much entitled to the protections of the First Amendment as mature non-racist wisdom. The swastika should not have been removed from the bulletin board.
This is an example of the folly of hate crimes legislation, the blurring of the distinction between thoughts and acts.
You would think that instead of a reflexive knee jerk politically correct tar and feathering from a supposed institution of higher learning, they would investigate a bit more. As Darren points out. Not all swastika looking symbols are the same, and the student could well be using one that is central to the religion of Hinduism.
The symbol has been used for thousands of years before the Nazis decided to appropriate it.
http://i.imgur.com/Z3iWr6X.jpg?1
Hate crime = the thought police are out to get you.
Painting swastikas = vandalism (misdemeanor/felony).
Posting swastikas on a bulletin board = free speech.
Yuri:
“Hate crime or not it is inappropreiate so the perpetrepretrator should be suspended or expelled.”
************************
So is burping in class. So what will it be: suspension or expulsion under your thoughtful standard?
Hate crime or not it is inappropreiate so the perpetrepretrator should be suspended or expelled. Enough with the immature racist nonsense.
“. They much prefer pontificating and a heavy hand. Remember, they also brought us zero tolerance.”
*******************
Well, nick, who said the age of miracles is over because for once we agree. This is an overreaction visited on a kid with no evidence of malicious intent. Why do school presidents comment (and likely defame by suggesting some connection between the incidents) before all the facts are in? “Pontificate” is the right word.
david, I read the website The Fire regularly. So, I would not think an institute of education would value teaching to address this issue. They much prefer pontificating and a heavy hand. Remember, they also brought us zero tolerance.
You would think that an institution of education would understand the value of teaching to address issues like this one. One does not need to make speech illegal in order to correct bad speech. Use good speech to counter bad speech. The law should apply only to harmful actions and not to expressions of the mind.
It seems the education industry has perfected “jumping the gun” when it comes to speaking and shooting from the hip. The Duke Lacrosse team is a prime example.
If there is no actual damage to property I don’t see the statutory elements being met.
If the accused had travelled to India as indicated in the press release he might have an affirmative defense in that a large religion there, Jainism, incorporates the symbol in their beliefs:
He could state this was a symbol in Jainism and not one of a Nazi swastika.
Yet, if the university makes a spectacle of such incidents, it surely affords an opportunity to curb the outrage and stand on a pedestal to make quite a statement that they are an example of social progress. Too bad it might be at the expense of the accused who in fact might be shown to have committed no crime. This is sometimes possible when prominent individuals jump the gun before any investigation is concluded.
I’m sure if the college looked inside their own art building they would find lots of “hate crimes” being displayed or even honored. Such hypocrites.
Hate crimes are fundamentally wrong. But, they “FEEEL” good to many people. So, if it “FEEELS” good, then it must be correct.
This growing penchant for criminalizing actions, statements, expressions, whatever only further entrenches the perpetrators, unnecessarily ruins lives, and diminishes those acts deserving of criminal prosecution. History has illustrated that education and other forms of preventative medicine are far more effective in curtailing these levels of anti social behavior.
Perhaps the individual might be made to publicly apologize, thereby being exposed and held to the same level of ridicule he or she attempted to inflict on his or her victims. If the lesson is not learned then toss the person out.
Most youth go through a phase of mindless rebellion. If it wasn’t a swastika it could have been something else. One would be hard pressed to find this sort of youthful indiscretion actually linked to any subversive philosophy.
A society must be very careful whom it labels criminals and what it terms crimes. We are continually seeing this inability to measure up to responsibility in school districts that lay down zero tolerance rules and regulations without considering the damage they do. How many lives have been ruined by stupid laws criminalizing pot? How much credibility has society lost by performing these senseless acts?
“The University is to be commended for its quick and determined response to these postings.”
That was the easy part; now what? Maybe this was a recruitment effort on a public board.
With that definition, any boss who asks the unmarried workers to stay late because they have nothing else to do is guilty of a hate crime.
Hate crime laws need to be abolished.