Title 1 of the Civil Rights Act passed in 1968 and included provisions against willfully injuring or intimidating an individual based on their race, religion, color, etc. As personal and group identity has become more and more important in the national discourse over the past 50 years, it’s not surprising that the definition of hate crime has evolved as well. In 2009 Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded the types of crimes that could be classified as hate crimes.
Most people have no problem identifying certain types of crimes as hate crimes. Someone spray paints a swastika on the side of synagogue, someone beats up an innocent stranger because they are wearing a Sikh or Muslim head wrap, high school kids vandalize the car of kid who just came out as gay or a group attends a political rally and tries to intimidate people into silence. These are pretty straight forward. However, I started to become concerned about the potential for the concept of “hate crime” to get pushed from the “makes sense” category to the “uh oh” category shortly after the 2009 Act. If Bob shoots Jim to death during an argument, Bob is guilty of murder. But if Bob calls Jim a a racial slur while pulling the trigger, this murder is somehow worse?
Likewise, we’ve all seen videos of some of the recent violent crimes against people of Asian descent, particularly in New York City. A logical thinker might ask, “why does our society see a difference between five white kids pummeling an old white man or five black kids pummeling an old black man, and five non-Asian kids pummeling an old Asian man?” The latter would likely qualify as a hate crime, making it somehow worse than the other cases. Society shouldn’t tolerate this type of violence no matter the motive.
The danger to society that perceived motives and judgements about the appropriateness of thought, opinion or analysis is equal to or more dangerous than the actual actions is that it begins to allow for censorship and other restrictions on civil liberties. For example, shortly after the November, 2016 election, HuffPost contributor Cathy Renna wrote a piece entitled “A Vote for Trump Was a Hate Crime.” Renna wasn’t literally calling for the arrest of all 63 million people who voted for Trump that election. But you can see where this is going. There are those in the progressive wing of the Democratic party who would happily outlaw the Republican party altogether. In their minds its ideology is so contaminated by racism and white supremacy that it is dangerous to the rest of the population.
Another example of this slippery slope is the evolving definition of hate speech. A primer published by the American Psychology Association for school teachers defines microaggressions as a type of hate speech. The APA labels negative body language or even silence as hate speech in some circumstances. They conclude, “Educators who ignore microaggressive language inevitably destroy any possible meaningful relationship with African American/Black students.” The problem with this is obvious – if I get to decide what is and isn’t a microagression, your intent doesn’t matter. And if I benefit by being offended, then virtually everything you do is going to offend me. I hold all the cards.
In 2020 a white UCLA professor read excerpts from Dr. King’s Letters from a Birmingham Jail which included Dr. King’s use of the “N-word.” Dr. King’s Letters from a Birmingham Jail is a landmark text, critically important in any study of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. A review of this text is perfectly appropriate at the college level, as is reading excerpts. The professor was terminated for his transgression. I would be interested in seeing the music and podcast histories on the smartphones of the students who were offended and didn’t feel safe with this professor’s lecture. I wonder how many of them would have a collection of rap, hip hop artists and comedians who use the N-word regularly in their art such as Katt Williams or Kendrick Lamar?
I’ve read several articles by black comedians and artists, such as Trevor Noah, who make the argument that it is perfectly fine for black people to use the word but it is always inappropriate for a white person to. Frankly, this argument does not pass the logic test and has the same problem that I mentioned above. If the offended party gets to make the rules, then they will continue to be offended and the bar of offense will get lower and lower.
The logical disconnect for white people who read stories like this is that the instructor’s intent seems to not matter. When hate crimes and hate speech were first defined, intent seemed to matter. But as the definition of hate speech and microaggressions have evolved, intent has been replaced by zero tolerance policies that take the burden of proving intent off of the “offended” party. This is a negative societal trend that all started with a landmark piece of legislation with a noble intent. Opportunists have, unfortunately, taken us down a negative path ever since.