Deciding Something is a Hate Crime

[mahagonny]

As I understand it, a hate crime is identified by either serious injury to a person on the basis of hatred of the group to which that person belongs, or the threat of same. But what about when something symbolic of group hatred just appears? It seems to be inferred that the intent was to threaten or intimidate the specific group even though the perpetrator hasn't been found. If it is that (a hate crime) we would agree that it was a dastardly act that should be punishable. But considering (1) the prevalence of hate crime hoaxes (Wilfred Reilly has studied and published) and (2) the mobilization of reaction to the appearance of the hate crime, why should the motive of the vandal be assumed to be one thing and not the other?

https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/uva-police-rule-noose-on-statue-a-hate-crime/article_fe6bac5c-2fd2-11ed-bbf1-1bd8db8ba530.html

[Parasaurolophus]

Suppose you call me a shithead, but mean it as a compliment. If we don't share some context in which it's clear that's a compliment, then it's both natural and correct for me to take offense. Language is public and shared, after all. It's the same for symbols.

If you draw a swastika, it's entirely justified to assume you mean it as a reference to nazis. Especially if you're operating in a cultural context where you ought to know better.

[mahagonny]

Suppose you call me a shithead, but mean it as a compliment. If we don't share some context in which it's clear that's a compliment, then it's both natural and correct for me to take offense. Language is public and shared, after all. It's the same for symbols.

If you draw a swastika, it's entirely justified to assume you mean it as a reference to nazis. Especially if you're operating in a cultural context where you ought to know better.

There's no question of whether the item is offensive. That's not my question.
I would be offended if a white supremacist put a noose on the statue of Homer in order to frighten black people, and I would also be offended if someone of any color who sees toxic, long lasting white supremacy in every human interaction or artifact placed the noose on Homer because he wants to plunge the campus further into his particular brand of faddish mania.
Hate crime hoaxes are a thing. They make things worse for victims of true hate crimes.
ETA: the campus police are trying to find out who did this. I doubt they will. The student activists who, as usual, stress the white-against-black racial animus narrative are calling for a stronger response from administration. That would be a response against something, the  nature of which is only partially known, that needs to be stronger. Hmm...
Little known: statistics show interracial violent crime involving both white and black citizens are something like 84% black perpetrator, white victim. Hate crime hoaxes that attribute racism to whites galvanize left activism, bringing political momentum with it. There is a lot of room for doubt in the certainty of what this represents, that is coming from the student activists.
If any black student or family is frightened by this experience, you have my sorrow and sympathy. I don't say you shouldn't feel that. Hopefully there is no real threat.
ETA: some of the students who carry on about social justice can easily be the same ones we catch plagiarizing and cheating on exams. just something to think about.

[Ruralguy]

Any crime *could be* some sort of hoax or set up. I think the police often have that at the back of their minds. But on the surface, it look like a hate crime, so it gets investigated as a hate crime. If that turns up evidence of some sort of hoax, then the direction of investigations turns, but unless that happens, there's no more reason to suspect its fictional, a priori, than for any other crime. 

[mahagonny]

Any crime *could be* some sort of hoax or set up. I think the police often have that at the back of their minds. But on the surface, it look like a hate crime, so it gets investigated as a hate crime. If that turns up evidence of some sort of hoax, then the direction of investigations turns, but unless that happens, there's no more reason to suspect its fictional, a priori, than for any other crime.

As someone who, unexpectedly later in life, began to ponder whether I am the right fit for calling myself conservative, I've recently begun reading a different variety of things. I think there is hate on the political right, but it's not the hate the left portrays. It's not white people hating blacks. That only rarely. It's things like people who don't want their young kids taught presentism history or gender choosing thought processes. They hate the purveyors of this new thinking, no doubt. But it's not raw racial animus on a personal interaction level, not at all, nor is it a desire for whites only space. But the political left wants to build up the white supremacy specter, because the entrenched ugliness of it resonates. Hitting that target is as easy as throwing a rock at a barn door. Mention Trump and you've got icing on the cake (not that that is even that accurate, but hey, it works). So a few of the more enterprising and unscrupulous among them have been race crime hoaxing themselves into a furor, hoping it will build political clout by bringing out the vote.

[mahagonny]

So...the thing that intrigues me is, while we know the police and the administration are obligated to speak and proceed in the ways of their protocol, we also know that race crime hoaxing has been on the rise, and that the intended framed party is just about always 'white people.' Society is being trolled by race hustlers.
So the part that intrigues is the 'what do people really think when they read about this?' And, how are we affected each time. None of it looks pleasant at all.

[Ruralguy]

I can see why Charlottesville would be particularly sensitive to this issue. They know from the events of several years ago that there is a lot of hate to go around, even if lots of it comes from the outside. If they just find a noose, and have no other evidence (handwriting, testimony of people who saw someone there, potentially video) I agree that the entire thing will probably have to be dropped. But if they have a trail to somewhere, then they have to see where that goes. Maybe its a hate crime, maybe its vandalism, maybe its a hoax. but as someone else said, the highly suggestive symbolism of nooses, especially in that region is not lost on anybody. Therefore, they start with hate crime. If nobody ever gets charged or convicted, then it goes away. I don't understand exactly why this is controversial.

[mahagonny]

Well, it would be controversial because a quick look at the coverage of say seven or eight of new sources shows in the comments that quite a few people suspect it is a hate crime hoax. And while one may certainly choose to write it off to 'oh, those southern white racists again...we brilliant academics and journalists already know everything about how they always think' I sense that the dyanamic is those readers are wondering if it is a hoax already because of the other recent hate crime hoaxes that have been in the news. Which would be like, you know...applying logic.
And, if someone is committing a hate crime hoax, they are doing something very injurious and irresponsible and they should be called out on it, and I think it's safe to say that if that turns out to be the case, this crowd of student activists never will. They would be much more likely to take a bow for their assessment of their own good intentions.
None of this means it is a hoax. But that's the point also...this is what happens when people do carry off hoaxes and there's no real penalty. Other hoaxers would be emboldened, and more citizens who are just trying to keep informed don't know what to believe any more.

And it's controversial because the student activists have stated in so many words that they want to make a spectacle of any white person who is not as enraged as they are. The university is not doing enough to protect them, they claim. As if someone has a magic wand that erases all hostility from the planet, but is simply too lazy to pick it up. I find it, frankly, unbecoming.

[marshwiggle]

I can see why Charlottesville would be particularly sensitive to this issue. They know from the events of several years ago that there is a lot of hate to go around, even if lots of it comes from the outside. If they just find a noose, and have no other evidence (handwriting, testimony of people who saw someone there, potentially video) I agree that the entire thing will probably have to be dropped. But if they have a trail to somewhere, then they have to see where that goes. Maybe its a hate crime, maybe its vandalism, maybe its a hoax. but as someone else said, the highly suggestive symbolism of nooses, especially in that region is not lost on anybody. Therefore, they start with hate crime. If nobody ever gets charged or convicted, then it goes away. I don't understand exactly why this is controversial.

These 2 statements together are the problem. If it gets assumed to be a hate crime, and no-one is ever proven to be responsible, then it never goes away because it will remain categorized as a hate crime.

[Wahoo Redux]

I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus.  It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor.  Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti.  As far as I know, no one was ever caught. 

So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax."  If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad.  The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.

What was the campus supposed to do, however?  Not reacting might have been the better tack, but then overt racism is not overtly challenged.

What is your point, Mahag?

[marshwiggle]

I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus.  It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor.  Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti.  As far as I know, no one was ever caught. 

So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax."  If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad.  The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.

What was the campus supposed to do, however? 

Clean it up?

[Wahoo Redux]

I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus.  It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor.  Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti.  As far as I know, no one was ever caught. 

So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax."  If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad.  The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.

What was the campus supposed to do, however? 

Clean it up?

Um, Marshy, my friend, duh.

And? 

[mahagonny]

I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus.  It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor.  Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti.  As far as I know, no one was ever caught. 

So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax."  If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad.  The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.

What was the campus supposed to do, however?  Not reacting might have been the better tack, but then overt racism is not overtly challenged.

What is your point, Mahag?

The campus is doing the right thing and the student activists are full of themselves by demanding more. This is the kind of pressure that results in extra, mandatory diversity training modules for 'white' faculty who were not racist to begin with, and often including rude exercises such as interrogating them over their ethnic background, creating expense and more wasted time, and maybe resentment.

[marshwiggle]

I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus.  It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor.  Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti.  As far as I know, no one was ever caught. 

So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax."  If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad.  The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.

What was the campus supposed to do, however? 

Clean it up?

Um, Marshy, my friend, duh.

And?

Does every drawing on a wall, building, etc. of an item of male anatomy indicate entrenched misogyny and "rape culture", or does it often represent an adolescent who thinks it's edgy to draw? (Given that there are ancient artifacts including exaggerated organs, and given that there are cultures where they dress to have that effect, it's not a recent thing, and it's not going to disappear.)

There will always be a small fringe who like to do transgressive things, and they will get off on publicity that it generates. That doesn't reflect society as a whole in any way, shape, or form, but the publicity will encourage the individuals to continue.

The best way to discourage this behaviour is by quietly and consistently cleaning it up just like a spilled garbage can, with no more fanfare.

[mahagonny]

Also, it's really time to begin educating students about hate crime hoaxes and the damage they do. But I don't expect it, because hate crime hoaxes are generally done with the intent to frame people, anonymous normal citizens as white supremacists, transphobes, homophobes (can you actually believe that tired riff is still circulating? Yet, it definitely is) which, as Marshy points out, linger as perceptions. This feeds into the political activism capital that the democrats want, so it's OK with most of the people who run higher ed.