Details of bathroom-stall vandalism graced the front page of the
Daily Bruin on Nov. 2.
Under the headline “Anti-Semitism marks UCLA,” the
paper reported an incident in which someone wrote “fuck
Jews” on a Kerckhoff Hall bathroom stall and drew
swastikas.
Sensationalist headline aside (the incident itself suggested
that anti-Semitism characterizes our campus no more than the
LaRouche presence signifies that UCLA is defined by conspiratorial
politics), the real importance of this incident is its
classification as a hate crime.
Nancy Greenstein, director of police community services at UCPD,
told the Daily Bruin that the incident would likely be considered a
hate crime.
“Usually the penalties are more severe if it’s
hate-related,” she said.
With the headline “Anti-semitism marks UCLA” in
mind, I sought to investigate what other attitudes define UCLA.
Conducting an informal survey of campus restrooms, such as those in
Young Research Library and Bunche Hall, I counted six derogatory
comments about women (“women are nature’s punching
bags”), three about Asians, two about Arabs and five about
whites (“kill whitey”).
There were scrawlings denigrating gays, some about gay sex, and
everything in between.
There was even a statement in support of Iran’s nuclear
program and launching nuclear weapons against the United
States.
Can you imagine police officers devoting themselves to
investigating every obscene bathroom scrawling?
With hate crime legislation, previously minor offenses ““
such as petty vandalism ““ become criminal offenses. This is
entirely due to the political content of the scrawlings.
In this case, the issue is an unpopular opinion, not the
bathroom stall scrawling itself. Vandalism as a crime is merely a
convenient excuse to punish these unpopular opinions that would
otherwise be protected.
Congress defined “hate crimes” as crimes in which
“the defendant’s conduct was motivated by … gender
identity of another individual or group of individuals.” The
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provided stricter
sentences for these crimes.
In the case of violent “hate crimes,” one could make
the argument that these violent crimes constitute a sort of
domestic terrorism. By targeting specific groups, the crimes may
cause individuals in these groups to legitimately fear that they
themselves might be targeted in future attacks.
But the general argument in favor of stricter sentencing for
hate crimes glosses over crucial facts.
Victims of crimes driven by bigotry are no more or no less
victimized than those of crimes where the perpetrator has other
motivations.
Also, the nature of hate crimes ““ one person violating the
rights of another ““ is incompatible with the practice of
punishing the perpetrator for the repercussions of the crime on
those not involved, such as members of the victim’s ethnic
group fearing for their safety.
These third-party effects, themselves subjective, are not a
direct result of the crime, which ought to be the criteria by which
punishments are determined.
This argument holds less water in cases such as the Kerckhoff
vandalism, where no violence was involved. For all we know, the
person responsible for this incident may be a constipated high
school freshman on a campus tour. Only the most paranoid could
possibly fear for their safety as a result of this vandalism.
The penalty for “hate speech,” which is generally
protected by the First Amendment, when combined with a crime, is
worse than the penalty for the crime alone. In effect, the
expression of an unpopular opinion is itself criminalized.
This is a path we can’t afford to follow. Our society
confers the right to bigotry, however vile.
But the very logic that justifies additional punishment for hate
crimes on the basis of third-party effects could be construed to
outlaw mere expressions of opinion, destroying the foundation of
our most fundamental rights.
Hate crime laws thus contradict the spirit, if not the code, of
our Constitution. If current laws require that police treat
incidents such as these as hate crimes, hate crime legislation
needs to be modified, if not repealed.
Government criminalization of bathroom scrawlings on the basis
of bigoted expressions of opinion, though laughably alarmist, may
establish a dangerous precedent.
To share your favorite bathroom scrawlings, e-mail Lazar at
dlazar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.