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.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, .
Take away my freedom, please. Take away the Preamble, it’s meaningless anyway. Nullify the entire Constitution, except the few parts you like. And make everything you don’t like, even every thought you don’t like, against the law. Don’t worry about that pesky Bill of Rights, it was emasculated long ago. Besides, Ben Bernanke “evolved” all the founding documents to his liking. There’s nothing “American” left. You’ll have to check with Ben and Friends to find out what you’re allowed to do now.
(I just hope those disagreeable Americans don’t find out what we’ve done to their country).
The Third Reich was almost indescribably loathsome and anathema to everything I hold dear, and that’s why I want no truck with authoritarianism in any of its guises. The ACLU did the right thing in this historic defense of free speech:
*When the Nazis Came to Skokie:
Freedom for Speech We Hate*
Philippa Strum
“In the Chicago suburb of Skokie, one out of every six Jewish citizens in the late 1970s was a survivor–or was directly related to a survivor–of the Holocaust. These victims of terror had resettled in America expecting to lead peaceful lives free from persecution. But their safe haven was shattered when a neo-Nazi group announced its intention to parade there in 1977. Philippa Strum’s dramatic retelling of the events in Skokie (and in the courts) shows why the case ignited such enormous controversy and challenged our understanding of and commitment to First Amendment values.
“The debate was clear-cut: American Nazis claimed the right of free speech while their Jewish ‘targets’ claimed the right to live without intimidation. The town, arguing that the march would assault the sensibilities of its citizens and spark violence, managed to win a court injunction against the marchers. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union took the case and successfully defended the Nazis’ right to free speech.
“Skokie had all the elements of a difficult case: a clash of absolutes, prior restraint of speech, and heated public sentiment. In recreating it, Strum presents a detailed account and analysis of the legal proceedings as well as finely delineated portraits of the protagonists: Frank Collin, National Socialist Party of America leader and the son of a Jewish Holocaust survivor; Skokie community leader Sol Goldstein, a Holocaust survivor who planned a counter-demonstration against the Nazis; Skokie mayor Albert Smith, who wanted only to protect his townspeople; and ACLU attorney David Goldberger, caught in the ironic position of being a Jew defending the rights of Nazis against fellow Jews.
“While the ACLU did win the case, it was a costly victory–30,000 of its members left the organization. And in the end, ironically, the Nazis never did march in Skokie.
“Forcefully argued, Strum’s book shows that freedom of speech must be defended even when the beneficiaries of that defense are far from admirable individuals. It raises both constitutional and moral issues critical to our understanding of free speech and carries important lessons for current controversies over hate speech on college campuses, inviting readers to think more carefully about what the First Amendment really means.”
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html
I recall that some of us were offended when an assistant attorney general at the Missouri Attorney General’s Office in Jefferson City had a Confederate Flag behind his desk and a little stand up flag from Georgia with a Confederate Flag in the corner of that flag, on his desk. The assistant A.G. was not in his empty office as I walked by in 1974 or so. But I asked another assistant A.G. : “What is that all about?” The guy said: “Oh, that’s just Clarence, he is Unreconstructed and that’s his way of saying it.” Since the Attorney General was John Danforth and he purported to be against the Klan and racism I thought it a bit odd. I met the guy later at some functions in the city there and he seemed cordial. His name was Clarence Thomas.
It is possible that some Likudniks put the swastikas up as they are always looking to promote the idea that rampant antisemitism exists.
It seems Amerika is just about ready to elevate certain graffiti and graphic symbols to hate crimes. For example, a peace symbol might signify hatred for one’s own country as well as give comfort and aid to whoever the enemy of the month is.
I can certainly imagine a neocon warhawk trying to make the case that a peace symbol is a vile and treasonous hate crime.
The new Amerika can’t let the 1st Amendment be a license to hurt somebody’s feelings or even make some people worry that someone’s feelings somewhere might be hurt.
The old remedy of making people pay for whatever property damage they caused with marking it up just isn’t enough for modern authoritarian attitudes regarding punishment for unpopular activities.
I’d make the students who posted the swastika do some community service at a Jewish nursing home, listening to the stories of the survivors of the Holocaust.
Ken Rogers
Some form of recognition for the act is necessary. Perhaps being exposed and shamed is more harsh than community service in a home for the elderly. At this age this is not something that draws writing, ‘I have been a bad boy.’ on the blackboard a thousand times. A dose of a reality the kid skipped would do wonders.
I do not think it would benefit anyone to have this attached to his future. The criminal aspect is something the establishment is guilty of.
@ GWU President Steven Knapp
“We must work together to guarantee that all our students are safe from expressions of bigotry and hatred.”
Roll that around in your mind for a minute and consider its implications in terms of producing graduates in touch with, and able to deal with, social reality.
Can you say, “infantilization”?
Another thought……because this is something that I would do…..
The student purposely posted Hindu or other religious symbols that resemble a Nazi Swastika, just to see how really stupid and ideologically blind the administrators AND the students of the school really are. Knee jerks r us.
Post something completely innocent and watch the predictable melt down and followed by an Emily Litella…”nevermind”.
Rinse and repeat until they realize how idiotic they are being. As if that is possible.
So….poking at the nest of snakes, might be kind of fun as long as you can stand back far enough.
@JT
“The lack of clarity itself can have a chilling effect for students, though some may welcome such a chilling for this type of speech.”
If it can’t handle without calling in the police a symbol posted without comment on a public bulletin board, allow me to suggest that GWU is in big trouble as an institution of intellectual endeavor.
It’s gratifying to see so many comments here that are critical of the GWU administration’s pearl-clutching overreaction to the posting of what is probably, based on where the student got it, an Indian religious symbol. Thank goodness the student wasn’t caught in the act, or he might have been de-pantsed and beaten while naked, on the spot.
Seriously, PC is a major threat to freedom of speech in this country, and the university is the last place you should encounter it, rather than its being a hotbed for it.
I especially “enjoyed” reading about the University of Missouri’s brush with death by cotton ball, and the traumatizing of the whole university community and its politically correct supporters in the legal and media communities.
“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.”
If that’s only 50% true, it’s tragicomic.
Issac and mespo: I have sincerely enjoyed reading your intelligent and informed comments on several threads here, but have to tell you that I’m disappointed by your calling for punishment of the symbol-poster with forced community service and involuntary servitude in a hot cotton field for the cotton-ballers, respectively. I don’t want to believe that you really want to punish speech and pranking, even if they’re insensitive, puerile, or stupid.
I invoke the spirit of William Blake, here: “Opposition is true friendship.” 🙂
Darren and DBQ beat me to it very well with their calling attention to the use of the swastika by many religions and cultures having nothing in common with the genocidal politics of the Third Reich.
A tip o’ me green chapeau to them, and a “Happy St. Pat’s Day” to all.
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“Hate crime” law is unconstitutional. “Hate crime” law is an egregious violation of the right to freedom of thought, speech, press and assembly. “Hate crime” is “thought crime” and if Americans have the right to freedom of speech, press and assembly, they have the right to freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is a natural right that existed before government was established. The Founders ASSUMED certain facts, one of which was the right to freedom of thought, which they thought all people understood, assumed and lived by.
The symbols referenced have various interpretations and meanings and do not represent a formal “enemy” in a declared war. There is no possible treasonous act, including aiding and abetting.
The crime here is vandalism and property damage, not plausible threats of physical violence.
“Hate crime” law is a dangerous step toward totalitarianism.
Which “thoughts” will be declared illegal next?
We should have separate schools for people like these offended students, who are far too fragile for this world.
Well, I accidentally posted before I finished–a little humor was implied there, in an insensitive context I suppose in this age of heightened fears, triggers, and thinning skin. That said, I find Nazis abhorrent and the relevant symbolism equally indigestible–the swastika in is nasty incarnation, often paired in the US with the Tennessee battle flag and various KKK and Aryan supremacy icons is, to me, the territory of the feeble-minded, uneducated, and cruel. But is it a hate crime? I’m hesitant to embrace any non-violent expression as a hate crime, because the resolution of such is too easy. Is is disgusting to use words and symbols to bully and intimidate? Absolutely. Is it a crime? No. If you insult me, I have to be strong enough to take it, no matter how awful and hurtful. If you insult me while striking me then 1) that’s a hate crime, and 2) you’d damn well better be ready to finish what you started. The more interesting thing is, if you wave your seditious southern rag in my face and I call you a redneck and deviate your septum, is THAT a hate crime? Because I guarantee I hate you, but I’ll take my chances in court.
GWU or whomever has jurisdiction here needs to determine both the guilt and the intent, and punish accordingly. The property crime must be addressed, but the rest of it seems like an excellent opportunity to open some communication, create a “teaching moment.” A lot of times people aren’t as stupid as they look.
A man in my family when I was young employed the “n-word” on a regular basis–not Quentin Tarantino-regular, but enough–until one day my mother, a strong civil rights supporter from the back of the bus days, called him out on it. Not just called him out, but shamed him with the observation that many of his closest friends from Viet Nam were black guys–from the south, from Chicago and LA, New Jersey. “Well, I didn’t mean THOSE guys—THEY aren’t–I didn’t mean….” he struggled, and as a little kid I think it was the first time I saw enlightenment in the face of a human, as his expression went from confusion to something close to horror. He’d never made that connection between the theoretical idea of a black person, who was by default and his ignorance an n-word, and the men he’d come to trust with his life–until he did, and the weight of his bigotry fell on him almost at once. He never used that word again, either.
And that’s what I’d do–if this is a hateful thing–sit the perpetrator down with some volunteers, personalize his fears, his anger, his whatever until he sees the person inhabiting the skin.
Jim22
There is no little difference in venue here. The swastika was exhibited in a specific place with obvious trespass and intent to provoke a specific reaction. The similarity to other meanings for a swastika is, in this instance, completely obliterated by the most infamous meaning. The perpetrator of the act did what he did to push a button.
The ‘Piss Christ’ by Andres Serrano is one in a series of crucifixes immersed in urine, blood, milk, and other liquids. Given the checkered past of Christianity, ranging from acts that equal and surpass the Nazis to acts of open charity to all, the subject is not as finite in its impact. It was also exhibited in the proper place with the proper advertisement. The art galleries are not places of multifaceted public interaction where one should be sensitive but are, in large, private operations specifically designed to provoke. The two venues are not even remotely similar. The two intentions are not even remotely similar.
The person of the swastika cut right to the bone with little if any deviation from his intent. His action should be addressed in the appropriate manner, education, community service, but not criminal charges.
If you don’t like the work of Andres Serrano then you probably will not stumble on it where it is least likely to be.
So, no, I did not feel the same way. However, I did categorize it in my view as nothing more than cheap provocation. There are much more inventive ways of exposing and illustrating the contradictions found in religion. I found the blood and milk versions well composed but not so much the urine. But, this is a common intrinsic fault with art, provocation when trying too hard.
Go get ’em, George.
issac – “A few dozen hours of some relevant community service would be appropriate. ”
Did you feel the same way about the crucifix in urine “artwork”.
Interesting article. Perhaps the appropriate response is public condemnation rather than criminal prosecution for using a vile symbol. The actual symbol is not illegal, although it is abhorrent. Unless, as Darren and others pointed out, it was used in the context of religions that predated the Nazis.
DBQ, Darren, David, Nick, Mike and Oxa are spot on. This was an excellent teachable moment that the university just threw away.
If you spend a little time mentally editing the image in the following post, that shamrock kind of resembles a swastika, too . . . What is the real message there? Happy St. Patrick’s Day? Or something more nefarious?
Without knowing the kid’s mind, I think he was trying to see what kind of reaction he would raise with a Jain swastika. I really do not think real harm was intended.
Youthful exuberance, youthful folly, youthful ignorance, stupidity, whatever, the kid needs to be educated, not charged. This BS about Malta, Jain, etc is just that BS. The kid wanted to provoke and picked a touchy subject. A few dozen hours of some relevant community service would be appropriate. This society is getting less and less creative. Any fool off the street can create a criminal.